Transcranial alternating current stimulation for treating depression: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".