La stimulation magnétique transcrânienne répétitive est-elle efficace pour traiter les troubles anxieux?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un tiers des personnes souffrant d’un trouble anxieux ne répond pas aux traitements conventionnels. La stimulation magnétique transcrânienne répétitive (SMTr) pourrait être un traitement complémentaire ou alternatif pour tenter de soigner ces personnes. Dans cet article, nous décrivons l’état des connaissances actuelles dans ce domaine de recherche émergeant concernant l’efficacité du traitement de la SMTr pour traiter certains troubles anxieux (selon le DSM-IV-TR). Le trouble de stress post-traumatique, le trouble obsessionnel-compulsif et le trouble panique sont les troubles anxieux les plus étudiés en lien avec la SMTr. De façon générale, les résultats montrent que la SMTr pourrait être efficace, mais à certaines conditions. Nous identifions les conditions d’efficacité, incluant les paramètres critiques utilisés dans le traitement par la SMTr. Nous identifions aussi les limites des études réalisées à ce jour et les pistes de recherche prometteuses pour la suite.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".