MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949442333 · doi:10.1002/cpt.1541

The Current and Future Potential of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation With Electroencephalography in Psychiatry

2019· review· en· W2949442333 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeanette Hui, Sara Tremblay, Zafiris J. Daskalakis

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Mental Health FoundationCampbell Institute
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceDorsolateral prefrontal cortexSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Prefrontal cortexPsychologyMajor depressive disorderMedicinePsychiatryStimulationCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The search for biological targets in psychiatric disorders is essential to better understand illness mechanisms and also to monitor and predict response to currently available therapeutic interventions. To this end, the combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) has emerged as a powerful clinical research tool. TMS-EEG allows cortical properties, such as excitability, inhibition, oscillatory activity, and connectivity, to be directly probed within a specific region of the cortex. This review will summarize the state of the current literature on TMS-EEG and its potential to uncover biological targets in psychiatric illnesses, with a focus on major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Collectively, the reviewed studies suggest that alterations in gamma-aminobutyric acid-mediated inhibition and gamma oscillations in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and neighboring frontal regions are potential shared biomarkers in psychiatry, highlighting the potential of TMS-EEG to help identify translational biomarkers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207