MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3186486636 · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2021.07.005

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Indices of Cortical Excitability Enhance the Prediction of Response to Pharmacotherapy in Late-Life Depression.

2022· article· en· W3186486636 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkKrembil FoundationUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationPharmacotherapyBrain stimulationElectroencephalographyStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older adults with late-life depression (LLD) often experience incomplete or lack of response to first-line pharmacotherapy. The treatment of LLD could be improved using objective biological measures to predict response. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to measure cortical excitability, inhibition, and plasticity, which have been implicated in LLD pathophysiology and associated with brain stimulation treatment outcomes in younger adults with depression. TMS measures have not yet been investigated as predictors of treatment outcomes in LLD or pharmacotherapy outcomes in adults of any age with depression. METHODS: We assessed whether pretreatment single-pulse and paired-pulse TMS measures, combined with clinical and demographic measures, predict venlafaxine treatment response in 76 outpatients with LLD. We compared the predictive performance of machine learning models including or excluding TMS predictors. RESULTS: Two single-pulse TMS measures predicted venlafaxine response: cortical excitability (neuronal membrane excitability) and the variability of cortical excitability (dynamic fluctuations in excitability levels). In cross-validation, models using a combination of these TMS predictors, clinical markers of treatment resistance, and age classified patients with 73% ± 11% balanced accuracy (average correct classification rate of responders and nonresponders; permutation testing, p < .005); these models significantly outperformed (corrected t test, p = .025) models using clinical and demographic predictors alone (60% ± 10% balanced accuracy). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings suggest that single-pulse TMS measures of cortical excitability may be useful predictors of response to pharmacotherapy in LLD. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether combining TMS predictors with other biomarkers further improves the accuracy of predicting LLD treatment outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→