Personality Trait Predictive Utility and Stability in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Major Depression: Dissociation of Neuroticism and Self-Criticism: Utilité prédictive et stabilité des traits de personnalité dans la stimulation magnétique transcrânienne répétitive (SMTr) pour la dépression majeure : dissociation du neuroticisme et de l’autocritique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cost-efficient and non-invasive predictors of antidepressant response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are required. The personality vulnerabilities—neuroticism and self-criticism—are associated with antidepressant outcomes in other modalities; however, self-criticism has not been examined in response to rTMS, and the literature on neuroticism and rTMS is inconsistent. Methods: This naturalistic, 4-week study involved daily dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLFPC) rTMS for major depression (15 unipolar, 2 bipolar). Participants completed the Big Five Inventory (neuroticism) and the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (self-criticism) at baseline and at the end of treatment. Changes in depressive symptoms, as rated by the clinician, were quantified using the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Given the inconsistencies in data regarding the stability of neuroticism in patients receiving rTMS, we performed a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of trials examining rTMS and neuroticism. Results: rTMS significantly improved depressive symptoms, and this was predicted by higher levels of self-criticism but not neuroticism. Self-criticism was stable over the 4 weeks of rTMS; however, neuroticism decreased, and this was not related to decreases in depressive symptoms. Our quantitative meta-analysis of 4 rTMS trials in major depression ( n = 52 patients) revealed decreases in neuroticism, with a moderate effect size. Limitations: Our results are limited by a small sample size, and the absence of a sham-rTMS group. Our meta-analysis included only 4 trials. Conclusion: Highly self-critical patients appear to benefit more from rTMS than less self-critical patients. Neuroticism, a conceptually similar but distinct personality domain, does not appear to predict antidepressant response, yet this vulnerability factor for depression decreases after rTMS.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".