Bilateral Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Decreases Suicidal Ideation in Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on suicidal ideation in patients with treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) (patients who failed to clinically respond to at least 2 medication trials). METHODS: We pooled data from 2 published prospective randomized controlled trials of rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in patients with TRD. We compared the effect of bilateral, left unilateral, and sham rTMS on suicidal ideation as measured by the suicide item of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) (N = 156). RESULTS: Suicidal ideation resolved in 40.4%, 26.8%, and 18.8% of participants randomized to bilateral, left unilateral, and sham rTMS, respectively. The difference between bilateral and sham was significant (OR = 3.03; 95% CI, 1.19-7.71; P = .02), unlike the difference between left unilateral and sham (OR = 1.59; 95% CI, 0.61-4.12; P = .33). There was a modest correlation between change in suicidal ideation and change in depression severity (Pearson r = 0.38; P < .001) and no difference in change of HDRS-16 score between suicide remitters and nonremitters (P = .32). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral rTMS was superior to sham rTMS in reducing suicidal ideation in patients with TRD. Only a small portion of the reduction in suicidal ideation was attributable to the reduction in depressive symptoms. These data suggest that suicidal ideation could be a specific target symptom construct for rTMS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01515215 and NCT00305045.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".