1 Hz rTMS of the right orbitofrontal cortex for major depression: Safety, tolerability and clinical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional rTMS in major depressive disorder (MDD) targets the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). However, many patients do not respond to DLPFC-rTMS. Recent evidence suggests that the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) plays a key role in 'non-reward' functions and shows hyperconnectivity in MDD. OFC-rTMS has been used successfully in obsessive-compulsive disorder, and achieved remission in an MDD case nonresponsive to DLPFC- and DMPFC-rTMS. Here, we assess the safety and tolerability of right OFC-rTMS, and examine the effectiveness of inhibitory right OFC-rTMS in MDD, particularly among patients with previous nonresponse to DMPFC-rTMS. We performed a chart review to retrieve data on clinical characteristics, stimulation parameters, adverse events, and clinical symptom outcomes for a series of 42 patients with medication-resistant and/or DMPFC-rTMS-nonresponsive MDD, who underwent 20-30 sessions of 1Hz right OFC-rTMS at a single Canadian clinic from 2015 to 2017. Over 882 sessions of treatment, there were no seizures, visual/ocular complications, or other serious or treatment-limiting adverse events. Pain ratings averaged 6-7/10 (10=maximum tolerable); no patient discontinued treatment prematurely due to pain. 15/42 patients (35.7%) achieved response (≥50% symptom reduction) and 10/42 (23.8%) achieved remission. Among the 30/42 patients who were previous nonresponders to DMPFC-rTMS, 9/30 (30.0%) achieved response and 7/30 (23.8%) achieved remission. Response distribution was sharply bimodal. 1Hz right OFC-rTMS appears safe and tolerable, and may achieve remission in MDD patients even when conventional rTMS has failed. Sham-controlled follow-up studies 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".