MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009710440 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2020.02.018

Treatment-emergent mania with psychosis in bipolar depression with left intermittent theta-burst rTMS

2020· letter· en· W3009710440 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tyler S. Kaster, Yuliya Knyahnytska, Yoshihiro Noda, Jonathan Downar, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Daniel M. Blumberger

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersTemerty Family Foundation
KeywordsManiaPsychosisBipolar disorderDepression (economics)PsychologyPsychiatryAudiologyMedicineMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To our knowledge, this is the first case report of TEM with psychosis precipitated by iTBS applied to the left DLPFC in bipolar depression that has been reported in the literature. With the recent approval of iTBS for major depressive disorder by the FDA in 2018 [[5]MagVenture Another FDA clearance for MagVenture: 3 minute depression treatment n.d.https://www.magventure.com/component/k2/5-news/124-fda-clearance-for-magventureGoogle Scholar], it is likely that increasing numbers of patients with depression – including off-label use in patients with bipolar depression – will receive iTBS in the coming years. This case report highlights the potential risk for iTBS to precipitate mania in patients with an established bipolar disorder diagnosis, even when receiving treatment with mood stabilizing agents [[1]Yatham L.N. Kennedy S.H. Parikh S.V. Schaffer A. Bond D.J. Frey B.N. et al.Canadian network for mood and anxiety treatments (CANMAT) and international society for bipolar disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder.Bipolar Disord. 2018; 20: 97-170https://doi.org/10.1111/bdi.12609Crossref PubMed Scopus (752) Google Scholar].

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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