Number of pulses or number of sessions? An open-label study of trajectories of improvement for once-vs. twice-daily dorsomedial prefrontal rTMS in major depression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) shows efficacy in the treatment of major depressive episodes (MDEs), but can require ≥4-6 weeks for maximal effect. Recent studies suggest that multiple daily sessions of rTMS can accelerate response without reducing therapeutic efficacy. However, it is unresolved whether therapeutic effects track cumulative number of pulses, or cumulative number of sessions. OBJECTIVE: This open-label study reviewed clinical outcomes over a 20-30 session course of high-frequency bilateral dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC)-rTMS among patients receiving 6000 pulses/day delivered either in twice-daily sessions 80 min apart (at 20 Hz) or single, longer, once-daily sessions (at 10 Hz). METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified 130 MDD patients who underwent 20-30 daily sessions of bilateral DMPFC-rTMS (Once-daily, n = 65; Twice-daily, n = 65) at a single Canadian clinic. RESULTS: Mixed-effects modeling revealed significantly faster improvement (group-by-time interaction) for twice-daily versus once-daily DMPFC-rTMS. Across both groups, the pace of improvement showed a consistent relationship with number of cumulative sessions, but not with cumulative number of pulses. Although the twice-daily group completed treatment in half as many days, final clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between groups on dichotomous measures (response/remission rates: once-daily, 35.4%/33.8%; twice-daily, 41.5%/35.4%), or continuous measures, or on overall response distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily rTMS appears feasible, tolerable, and capable of achieving comparable results to once-daily rTMS, while also reducing course length approximately twofold. Therapeutic gains tracked the cumulative number of sessions, not pulses. Future randomized studies comparing once-daily to multiple-daily rTMS sessions, while controlling for number of pulses, may be warranted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it