A pilot investigation of an intensive theta burst stimulation protocol for patients with treatment resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Accelerated or intensive forms of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are increasingly being explored for their potential to produce more efficient and rapid treatment benefits in major depressive disorder (MDD). However, accelerated or intensive protocols using standard forms of rTMS are still quite time-consuming to apply. Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a novel form of magnetic stimulation with the potential to produce similar anti-depressant effects but in a much abbreviated period of time. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative efficacy of an intensive TBS protocol compared to standard rTMS treatment. METHODS: 74 outpatients (36 female, mean age 44.36 ± 12.1 years) with MDD received either intensive TBS (3 intermittent TBS treatments per day for 3 days in week 1, 3 treatments a day for 2 days in week 2, and 3 treatments in 1 day in week 3 and in week 4, or standard rTMS (5 daily sessions per week for 4 weeks). Patients were assessed weekly throughout the treatment course, and at 4 weeks after treatment end. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the degree of reduction in depressive symptoms, the rate of reduction in depressive symptoms, remission or response rates (response rates = 27.8% for intensive group, 26.3% for the standard group, p > 0.05 for all analyses) between the intensive TBS and standard rTMS treatment groups. However, the overall response and remission rates were limited in both groups. There was no difference in rates of side effects, no serious adverse events and no alterations in cognitive performance. CONCLUSION: Intensively applied TBS appears to have similar efficacy to standard rTMS when these were applied as delivered in this study but does not produce more rapid clinical benefits. The overall response rates in both groups in this study were limited, most likely by the total doses provided in both study arms. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000443493.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".