MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982620197 · doi:10.1503/jpn.180230

Dorsolateral prefrontal γ-aminobutyric acid in patients with treatment-resistant depression after transcranial magnetic stimulation measured with magnetic resonance spectroscopy

2019· article· en· W2982620197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer G. Levitt, Güldamla Kalender, Joseph O’Neill, Joel P. Diaz‐Fong, Ian A. Cook, Nathaniel D. Ginder, David E. Krantz, Michael Minzenberg, Nikita Vince-Cruz, Lydia D. Nguyen, Jeffry R. Alger, Andrew F. Leuchter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationDorsolateral prefrontal cortexGABAergicgamma-Aminobutyric acidStimulationPsychologyInternal medicineAgonistGABAA receptorPrefrontal cortexMedicineNeuroscienceEndocrinologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The therapeutic mechanism of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) may involve modulation of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) levels. We used proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to assess changes in GABA levels at the site of rTMS in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Methods: In 26 adults with TRD, we used Mescher–Garwood point-resolved spectroscopy (MEGA-PRESS) spectral-editing MRS to measure GABA in the left DLPFC before and after standard clinical treatment with rTMS. All participants but 1 were medicated, including 12 patients on GABA agonist agents. Results: Mean GABA in the DLPFC increased 10.0% (p = 0.017) post-rTMS in the overall sample. As well, GABA increased significantly in rTMS responders (n = 12; 23.6%, p = 0.015) but not in nonresponders (n = 14; 4.1%, p = not significant). Changes in GABA were not significantly affected by GABAergic agonists, but clinical response was less frequent (p = 0.005) and weaker (p = 0.035) in the 12 participants who were receiving GABA agonists concomitant with rTMS treatment. Limitations: This study had an open-label design in a population receiving naturalistic treatment. Conclusion: Treatment using rTMS was associated with increases in GABA levels at the stimulation site in the left DLPFC, and the degree of GABA change was related to clinical improvement. Participants receiving concomitant treatment with a GABA agonist were less likely to respond to rTMS. These findings were consistent with earlier studies showing the effects of rTMS on GABA levels and support a GABAergic model of depression.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations59
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207