Large-scale analysis of interindividual variability in theta-burst stimulation data: Results from the ‘Big TMS Data Collaboration’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have attempted to identify the sources of interindividual variability in response to theta-burst stimulation (TBS). However, these studies have been limited by small sample sizes, leading to conflicting results. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: This study brought together over 60 TMS researchers to form the 'Big TMS Data Collaboration', and create the largest known sample of individual participant TBS data to date. The goal was to enable a more comprehensive evaluation of factors driving TBS response variability. METHODS: 118 corresponding authors of TMS studies were emailed and asked to provide deidentified individual TMS data. Mixed-effects regression investigated a range of individual and study level variables for their contribution to iTBS and cTBS response variability. RESULTS: 430 healthy participants' TBS data was pooled across 22 studies (mean age = 41.9; range = 17-82; females = 217). Baseline MEP amplitude, age, target muscle, and time of day significantly predicted iTBS-induced plasticity. Baseline MEP amplitude and timepoint after TBS significantly predicted cTBS-induced plasticity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest known study of interindividual variability in TBS. Our findings indicate that a significant portion of variability can be attributed to the methods used to measure the modulatory effects of TBS. We provide specific methodological recommendations in order to control and mitigate these sources of variability.
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 | 0.037 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".