Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depressive disorder: basic principles and future directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and well-tolerated intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD). Over 150 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been carried out, and its efficacy has been confirmed in dozens of meta-analyses. Real world data has also confirmed the effectiveness of rTMS for MDD in clinical practice, with the most recent literature indicating response rates of 40-50% and remission rates of 25-30%. In this review, we first offer an historical perspective, followed by a review of basic principles, such as putative mechanisms, procedures and protocols, stimulation targets, efficacy and durability of response, side effects, and the placebo controversy. In the second part of this review, we first discuss solutions to increase accessibility to rTMS, such as modifications to treatment equipment, protocols and setting. We continue with possible means to further increase effectiveness, such as treatment personalization and extension. We conclude by addressing the scheduling issue, with accelerated rTMS (arTMS) as a possible solution.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it