MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216535181 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.023

Baseline rumination levels as a predictor of response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depressive disorder

2021· article· en· W3216535181 on OpenAlexaff
Tian Ren Chu, Clémence Noiseux, Véronique Desbeaumes Jodoin, Paul Lespérance, Jean‐Philippe Miron

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuminationTranscranial magnetic stimulationMajor depressive disorderPsychologyRating scaleDepression (economics)Dorsolateral prefrontal cortexInternal medicineStimulationClinical psychologyAudiologyPrefrontal cortexMedicinePsychiatryCognitionNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Pathological rumination is a cardinal symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD), resulting from default-mode network (DMN) hyperactivity. Higher baseline rumination have been associated with onset of MDD, and therapies aiming at reducing rumination lead to clinical improvement. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is effective for MDD and has been shown to normalize activity in the DMN. Objective: To examine whether baseline rumination levels is a useful predictor of response to rTMS in MDD. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 46 patients who received accelerated rTMS (arTMS) for MDD: 23 received a prolonged intermittent theta burst (piTBS) (1,800 pulses) protocol, and 23 received a high frequency (HF) 20Hz (3,000 pulses) protocol. Stimulation was delivered over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) at 110-120% of the resting motor threshold (MT) using figure-8 coils. Outcomes were assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Ruminative Response Scale (RRS) (divided into brooding [B] and reflection [R] subscales). We performed correlation analysis to examine the relationship between percentage improvement in MADRS score and baseline rumination scores across both protocols, and for each protocol separately. Both groups were matched for age, sex, and baseline MADRS score. Results: Across both protocols, improvement on the MADRS and on the RRS were positively correlated (r=.424, P=.019). However, baseline rumination, B and R scores showed no correlation with improvement on the MADRS. Similar results were obtained for the piTBS group alone. In the HF group, higher baseline rumination was associated with better improvement of depressive symptoms, but the results were of borderline significance (r=-.489, P=.046). Results were more significant using the Reflection subscale (r=-.561, P=0.019). Conclusion: In MDD, higher baseline levels of rumination may be associated with better response to HF rTMS, but not piTBS. These results will need to be replicated in larger cohorts. Keywords: cognition, TMS, neuromodulation, brooding

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207