Impact of prior treatment on remission with intermittent theta burst versus high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Multiple prior treatment failures are associated with reduced rates of remission to subsequent antidepressant treatment, including rTMS. The degree of treatment resistance that is especially predictive of inferior outcome is uncertain. Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is a newer form of rTMS where less is known regarding clinical predictors of remission. The THREE-D study demonstrated that iTBS is non-inferior to 10 Hz rTMS for the treatment of depression. Objective Determine if the number and type of prior pharmacotherapy trials affect the rate of remission with two types of rTMS. Method Compare remission rates based on prior pharmacotherapy using data from the THREE-D trial (NCT01887782). Results No differences in remission rates were noted between the three levels of treatment resistance, however, participants with 3 compared to <3 treatment failures had lower rates of remission: 17.3% versus 29.4% (χ 2 4.87; df = 1; p = 0.03). Conclusions Three or more treatment failures may be associated with lower remission rates with 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".