Left handedness and response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Considerable research has demonstrated the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment (rTMS) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with differences in effects related to laterality of stimulation. However, no systematic research has explored whether left-handed subjects respond in the same way as right-handed subjects. METHODS: = 310) were pooled and we explored whether left-handed patients with MDD responded in a similar manner to rTMS, including how they responded to both high-frequency left and low-frequency right-sided forms of treatment. RESULTS: Overall, patients with MDD who were left-handed responded to a greater degree than right-handed patients to rTMS therapy. On subgroup analysis, notably limited by small numbers in the left handed groups, this effect was seen with high-frequency left-sided treatment but not with low-frequency right-sided treatment. The overall effect of a greater response in left-handed patients was not attributable to other clinical or study variables. CONCLUSIONS: Standard forms of rTMS treatment appear to be effective in patients with MDD who are left-handed and there seems no justification for modifying the laterality of treatment application in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".