A randomized sham controlled comparison of once vs twice-daily intermittent theta burst stimulation in depression: A Canadian rTMS treatment and biomarker network in depression (CARTBIND) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is a newer form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD). Applying multiple daily iTBS sessions may enable patients to achieve remission more rapidly. OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and tolerability of a twice-daily versus once-daily iTBS protocol in patients with TRD. We hypothesized that twice-daily iTBS would result in a greater improvement in depression scores compared to once-daily iTBS. METHODS: 208 participants (131 females) with TRD were randomized to receive either iTBS (600 pulses) delivered twice-daily with a 54-min interval between treatments or once-daily (1200 pulses) with 1 sham treatment with the same interval between treatments, to ensure equal levels of daily therapeutic contact and blinding of patients and raters. The primary outcome measure was change in depression scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) after 10 days of treatment and 30 days of treatments. RESULTS: HRSD-17 scores improved in both the twice-daily and once-daily iTBS groups; however, these improvements did not significantly differ between the two groups at either the 10-day or 30-day timepoints. Response and remission rates were low (<10%) in both groups after 10 days and consistent with prior reports at 30 days; these rates did not differ between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that twice-daily iTBS does not accelerate response to iTBS and is not different from once-daily treatment in terms of improving depressive symptoms in patients with TRD. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02729792 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02729792).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".