Psychiatric profile and quality of life of subjects with excess weight treated with transcranial direct current stimulation combined with a hypocaloric diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) may reduce appetite and caloric intake and may be able to play a role as an adjunct treatment for obesity. Stimulation of this brain area is also used for the treatment of depression, which shares a common pathophysiology with obesity. As a result, the effect of tDCS on mental health and its impact on the quality of life of subjects with excess weight needs to be addressed.Objective: To assess the effect of daily tDCS of the right DLPFC on mood, daytime sleepiness, anxiety and quality of life in subjects with excess weight on a hypocaloric diet.Methods: We randomly assigned 28 subjects to receive 20 sessions of active or sham tDCS over the right DLPFC for 20 consecutive weekdays. The severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State (STAI-S). Sleepiness was measured by a daytime sleepiness questionnaire (DSQ), and quality of life was measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36).Results: There were no significant changes in BDI, STAI-S and DSQ scores between groups, even after adjustments for the use of antidepressant medications and changes in body weight. There were also no significant changes in different subscales of the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire between groups.Conclusion: Repetitive tDCS on the right DLPFC is not associated with impairment in mental health or quality of life in overweight and obese subjects.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".