MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801280679 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30295-2

Effectiveness of theta burst versus high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression (THREE-D): a randomised non-inferiority trial

2018· article· en· W2801280679 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel M. Blumberger, Fidel Vila‐Rodriguez, Kevin E. Thorpe, Kfir Feffer, Yoshihiro Noda, Peter Giacobbe, Yuliya Knyahnytska, Sidney H. Kennedy, Raymond W. Lam, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Jonathan Downar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCampbell Family Mental Health Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTemerty Family FoundationUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationTolerabilityTreatment-resistant depressionMedicineDepression (economics)Major depressive episodeMajor depressive disorderRandomized controlled trialDeep transcranial magnetic stimulationDorsolateral prefrontal cortexClinical trialPsychiatryPhysical therapyPsychologyPrefrontal cortexAdverse effectInternal medicineStimulationMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1,292
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207