MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206369288 · doi:10.1093/brain/awab252

Transcranial alternating current stimulation for treating depression: a randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W4206369288 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Transcranial alternating current stimulationStimulationMedicineNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyTranscranial magnetic stimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of depression with antidepressants is partly effective. Transcranial alternating current stimulation can provide a non-pharmacological alternative for adult patients with major depressive disorder. However, no study has used the stimulation to treat first-episode and drug-naïve patients with major depressive disorder. We used a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled design to examine the clinical efficacy and safety of the stimulation in treating first-episode drug-naïve patients in a Chinese Han population. From 4 June 2018 to 30 December 2019, 100 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive 20 daily 40-min, 77.5 Hz, 15 mA, one forehead and two mastoid sessions of active or sham stimulation (n = 50 for each group) in four consecutive weeks (Week 4), and were followed for additional 4-week efficacy/safety assessment without stimulation (Week 8). The primary outcome was a remission rate defined as the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score ≤ 7 at Week 8. Secondary analyses were response rates (defined as a reduction of ≥ 50% in the HDRS-17), changes in depressive symptoms and severity from baseline to Week 4 and Week 8, and rates of adverse events. Data were analysed in an intention-to-treat sample. Forty-nine in the active and 46 in the sham completed the study. Twenty-seven of 50 (54%) in the active treatment group and 9 of 50 (18%) in the sham group achieved remission at the end of Week 8. The remission rate was significantly higher in the active group compared to that in the sham group with a risk ratio of 1.78 (95% confidence interval, 1.29, 2.47). Compared with the sham, the active group had a significantly higher remission rate at Week 4, response rates at Weeks 4 and 8, and a larger reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline to Weeks 4 and 8. Adverse events were similar between the groups. In conclusion, the stimulation on the frontal cortex and two mastoids significantly improved symptoms in first-episode drug-naïve patients with major depressive disorder and may be considered as a non-pharmacological intervention for them in an outpatient setting.

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 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)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.298 · 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