MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007765260 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2020.02.021

Depressive symptom trajectories associated with standard and accelerated rTMS

2020· article· en· W3007765260 on OpenAlex
Tyler S. Kaster, Leo Chen, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Kate E. Hoy, Daniel M. Blumberger, Paul B. Fitzgerald

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCentre for Addiction and Mental Health FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWeston Brain InstituteOntario Mental Health FoundationIndiviorFondation Brain CanadaBrain and Behavior Research FoundationNational Institutes of HealthHealth ResearchDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsDepressive symptomsPsychologyPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To determine if an accelerated rTMS protocol results in distinct depressive symptom response trajectories, compared to a standard rTMS protocol. We also sought to validate previous analyses that identified distinct depressive symptom response trajectories with rTMS treatment using an external dataset. METHOD: Data from two recent clinical trials comparing accelerated rTMS protocol delivered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) with standard once-daily rTMS protocol were used to identify depressive symptom response trajectories. The accelerated protocol in Trial 1 was conventional 10-Hz rTMS, while Trial 2 employed intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS). Participants were adult outpatients (18-70 years old) with bipolar or unipolar depression and moderate-severe depression (Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale score >19) who had failed to respond to adequate courses of two different antidepressants. We used group-based trajectory modeling to identify MADRS response trajectories, and regression techniques adjusting for baseline depressive symptom severity to determine the association between treatment protocol and depressive symptom response trajectory. RESULTS: Treatment outcomes of 189 participants were analysed. We identified four distinct response trajectories: "nonresponse" (N = 59; 30.7%), "minimal response" (N = 65; 34.1%), "higher symptoms, response" (N = 26; 14.6%), "lower symptoms, response" (N = 39; 20.6%). We failed to find an association between rTMS protocol (accelerated vs standard) with depressive symptom response trajectory even after adjusting for baseline depressive symptom severity. CONCLUSION: The accelerated rTMS protocol in this study did not impact depressive symptom response trajectories. This work provides further confirmatory evidence that there are distinct depressive symptom response trajectories with rTMS delivered to the left DLPFC. AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12616000443493 and ACTRN12613000044729.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.282
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