A pragmatic randomized controlled trial exploring the relationship between pulse number and response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment (rTMS) is an effective treatment for depression but the optimal methods of administration have yet to be determined. In particular, it is unclear whether there is a relationship between elements of the dose of stimulation (i.e., number of pulses) and clinical response. To address one aspect of dose, we conducted a trial comparing standard and high dose versions of high frequency left sided and low frequency right sided rTMS protocols (left standard = 50 trains, left high = 125 trains, right standard = 20 min, right high = 60 min, all per day in a single session). METHOD: 300 patients with treatment resistant depression were enrolled in a four arm randomized controlled trial across a four week time period. The primary outcome assessment was a comparison of response and remission rates on data from the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression Rating Scale (HRSD-17). RESULTS: The rate of response exceeded 45% in all groups. There was no significant difference between groups on initial analysis of the primary or secondary outcome measures (response rates: standard left = 52.5%, high left = 47.3%, standard right = 49.1%, high right = 48.4%). There was a greater remission rate with high compared to moderate dose left sided treatment when controlling for illness duration. We also found significant improvements in quality of life across all treatment groups. Illness duration was weakly associated with response. CONCLUSIONS: There was no consistent association between the antidepressant effect of rTMS and the number of TMS pulses provided across the ranges investigated in this study. Increasing TMS pulse number in individual sessions seems unlikely to be a method to substantially improve clinical outcomes, and future research should explore alternative means of improving clinical response. The study was registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12612000321842) https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=362063&isReview=true.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".