MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946175450 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00447

Test–Retest Reliability of the Effects of Continuous Theta-Burst Stimulation

2019· article· en· W2946175450 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ali Jannati, Peter J. Fried, Gabrielle Block, Lindsay M. Oberman, Alexander Rotenberg, Álvaro Pascual‐Leone

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEisaiBrainsWayMassachusetts Life Sciences CenterNational Institutes of HealthSage TherapeuticsNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNancy Lurie Marks Family FoundationHarvard CatalystSimons FoundationHarvard UniversityEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBoston Children's HospitalSidney R. Baer, Jr. FoundationSimons Foundation Autism Research InitiativeAutism Speaks
KeywordsCTBSMedicineIntraclass correlationStimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulationPsychologyPrimary motor cortexInternal medicineClinical psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The utility of continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) as index of cortical plasticity is limited by inadequate characterization of its test-retest reliability. Thus, we evaluated the reliability of cTBS aftereffects, and explored the roles of age, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and apolipoprotein E (APOE) polymorphisms. Methods: 28 healthy adults (age range 21–65) underwent two identical cTBS sessions (median interval = 9.5 days) targeting the motor cortex. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the log-transformed, baseline-corrected amplitude of motor evoked potentials (ΔMEP) at 5–60 minutes post-cTBS (T5–T60) were calculated. Results: ΔMEP at T50 was the most-reliable cTBS measure in the whole sample (ICC = 0.53). Area under-the-curve (AUC) of ΔMEPs was most reliable when calculated over the full 60 minutes post-cTBS (ICC = 0.40). cTBS measures were substantially more reliable in younger participants (< 35 yr) and those with BDNF Val66Val and APOE ε4– genotypes. Conclusions: cTBS aftereffects are most reliable when assessed 50 minutes post-cTBS, or when cumulative ΔMEP measures are calculated over 30–60 minutes post-cTBS. Reliability of cTBS aftereffects is influenced by age, and BDNF and APOE polymorphisms. Reliability coefficients are used to adjust effect-size calculations for interpretation and planning of cTBS studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207