MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753866639 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx114

Predicting Response to Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Patients With Schizophrenia Using Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Multisite Machine Learning Analysis

2017· article· en· W2753866639 on OpenAlexaff
Nikolaos Koutsouleris, Thomas Wobrock, Birgit Guse, Berthold Langguth, Michael Landgrebe, Peter Eichhammer, Elmar Frank, Joachim Cordes, Wolfgang Wölwer, Francesco Musso, Georg Winterer, Wolfgang Gäebel, Göran Hajak, Christian Ohmann, Pablo Emilio Verde, Marcella Rietschel, Raees Ahmed, William G. Honer, Dominic Dwyer, Farhad Ghaseminejad, Peter Dechent, Berend Malchow, Peter M. Kreuzer, Tim B Poeppl, Peter Falkai, Alkomiet Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAstraZeneca
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Magnetic resonance imagingFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleGeneralizability theoryPsychologyDorsolateral prefrontal cortexPrefrontal cortexNeuroimagingRandomized controlled trialMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceAudiologyStimulationInternal medicinePsychosisPsychiatryCognitionDevelopmental psychologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The variability of responses to plasticity-inducing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) challenges its successful application in psychiatric care. No objective means currently exists to individually predict the patients' response to rTMS. Methods: We used machine learning to develop and validate such tools using the pre-treatment structural Magnetic Resonance Images (sMRI) of 92 patients with schizophrenia enrolled in the multisite RESIS trial (http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00783120): patients were randomized to either active (N = 45) or sham (N = 47) 10-Hz rTMS applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex 5 days per week for 21 days. The prediction target was nonresponse vs response defined by a ≥20% pre-post Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative score reduction. Results: Our models predicted this endpoint with a cross-validated balanced accuracy (BAC) of 85% (nonresponse/response: 79%/90%) in patients receiving active rTMS, but only with 51% (48%/55%) in the sham-treated sample. Leave-site-out cross-validation demonstrated cross-site generalizability of the active rTMS predictor despite smaller training samples (BAC: 71%). The predictive pre-treatment pattern involved gray matter density reductions in prefrontal, insular, medio-temporal, and cerebellar cortices, and increments in parietal and thalamic structures. The low BAC of 58% produced by the active rTMS predictor in sham-treated patients, as well as its poor performance in predicting positive symptom courses supported the therapeutic specificity of this brain pattern. Conclusions: Individual responses to active rTMS in patients with predominant negative schizophrenia may be accurately predicted using structural neuromarkers. Further multisite studies are needed to externally validate the proposed treatment stratifier and develop more personalized and biologically informed rTMS interventions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207