Individual alpha frequency proximity associated with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation outcome: An independent replication study from the ICON-DB consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to attempt to replicate the finding that the individual alpha frequency (IAF) as well as the absolute difference between IAF and 10 Hz stimulation frequency (IAF-prox) is related to treatment outcome. METHODS: Correlations were performed to investigate the relationship between IAF-prox and percentage symptom improvement in a sample of 153 patients with major depressive disorder treated with 10 Hz (N = 59) to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) or 1 Hz (N = 94) to the right DLPFC repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS). RESULTS: There was a significant negative correlation between IAF-prox and the percentage of symptom improvement only for the 10 Hz group. Curve fitting models revealed that there was a quadratic association between IAF and treatment response in the 10 Hz group, with a peak at 10 Hz IAF. CONCLUSION: The main result of Corlier and colleagues was replicated, and the findings suggest that the distance between 10 Hz stimulation frequency and the IAF may influence clinical outcome in a non-linear manner. SIGNIFICANCE: rTMS is often administered at a frequency of 10 Hz, which is the center of the EEG alpha frequency band. The results can make a significant contribution to optimizing the clinical application of rTMS.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".