Functional connectivity of the anterior cingulate cortex predicts treatment outcome for rTMS in treatment-resistant depression at 3-month follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a first-line treatment for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The mechanisms of action of rTMS are not fully understood, and no biomarkers are available to assist in clinical practice to predict response to rTMS. This study aimed to demonstrate that after-rTMS clinical improvement is associated with functional connectivity (FC) changes of the subgenual cingulate cortex (sgACC) and rostral anterior cingulate (rACC), and FC of sgACC and rACC might serve as potential predictors for treatment response. METHODS: Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) data were collected within 1 week before rTMS initiation in 50 TRD patients to predict subsequent response to rTMS on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Follow-up rs-fMRI was obtained 12 weeks after completion of rTMS and neural correlates of rTMS in sgACC- and rACC-related FC patterns were compared to before rTMS data and with rs-fMRI from healthy participants. RESULTS: Treatment response was associated with lower FC of sgACC to right DLPFC and higher FC of rACC to left lateral parietal cortex (IPL) measured at baseline. Using sgACC-DLPFC and rACC-IPL connectivity as features, responder-nonresponder classification accuracies of 84% and 76% (end-of-treatment), 88% and 81% (3-month follow-up), respectively were achieved. Longitudinal rs-fMRI data analyses revealed that the hyperconnectivity between sgACC and visual cortex was normalized to a level which was comparable to that of healthy participants. CONCLUSIONS: Brain activity patterns in depression are predictive of treatment response to rTMS, and longitudinal change of brain activity in relevant brain circuits after rTMS is associated with treatment response in depression. Target engagement paradigms may offer opportunities to increase the efficacy of rTMS in TRD by optimal selection of patients for treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01887782 and NCT02800226.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".