MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998965434 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2020.01.007

Treatment of Executive Function Deficits in autism spectrum disorder with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: A double-blind, sham-controlled, pilot trial

2020· article· en· W2998965434 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stephanie H. Ameis, Daniel M. Blumberger, Paul E. Croarkin, Donald Mabbott, Meng‐Chuan Lai, Pushpal Desarkar, Péter Szatmári, Zafiris J. Daskalakis

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMental Health Research CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoCampbell Family Mental Health Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Mental HealthOntario Brain InstituteHospital for Sick ChildrenOntario Mental Health FoundationScottish Rite Charitable Foundation of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre for Addiction and Mental Health FoundationFondation Brain CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryCampbell InstituteTemerty Family FoundationUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationAutism spectrum disorderDouble blindNeuroscienceMedicineDeep transcranial magnetic stimulationStimulationAutismPilot trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBrain stimulationAudiologyPsychologyRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryInternal medicinePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In youth and young adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), executive function (EF) deficits may be a promising treatment target with potential impact on everyday functioning. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot randomized, double-blind, parallel, controlled trial evaluating repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for EF deficits in ASD. METHOD: In Toronto, Ontario (November 2014 to June 2017), a 20-session, 4-week course of 20 Hz rTMS targeting dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (90%RMT) was compared to sham stimulation in 16-35 year-olds with ASD (28 male/12 female), without intellectual disability, who had impaired everyday EF performance (n = 20 active/n = 20 sham). Outcome measures evaluated protocol feasibility and clinical effects of active vs. sham rTMS on EF performance. The moderating effect of baseline functioning was explored. RESULTS: Of eligible participants, 95% were enrolled and 95% of randomized participants completed the protocol. Adverse events across treatment arms were mild-to-moderate. There was no significant difference between active vs. sham rTMS on EF performance. Baseline adaptive functioning moderated the effect of rTMS, such that participants with lower baseline functioning experienced significant EF improvement in the active vs. sham group. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot RCT demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of using high frequency rTMS targeting DLPFC in youth and young adults with autism. No evidence for efficacy of active versus sham rTMS on EF performance was found. However, we found promising preliminary evidence of EF performance improvement following active versus sham rTMS in participants with ASD with more severe adaptive functioning deficits. Future work could focus on examining efficacy of rTMS in this higher-need population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Executive Function Deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Effects on Brain Structure: A Pilot Study; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02311751?term = ameis&rank = 1; NCT02311751. The trial was funded by: an American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) Pilot Research Award, the Innovation Fund from the Alternate Funding Plan of the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario, and an Ontario Mental Health Foundation (OMHF) Project A Grant and New Investigator Fellowship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations83
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207