MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220884311 · doi:10.1038/s41380-022-01524-8

Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials

2022· review· en· W4220884311 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

VenueMolecular Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeurocognitiveNeurostimulationBrain stimulationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AnxietyPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognitionMedicineStimulationInternal medicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), is a potentially effective treatment strategy for a number of mental conditions. However, no quantitative evidence synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TMS or tDCS using the same criteria including several mental conditions is available. Based on 208 RCTs identified in a systematic review, we conducted a series of random effects meta-analyses to assess the efficacy of NIBS, compared to sham, for core symptoms and cognitive functioning within a broad range of mental conditions. Outcomes included changes in core symptom severity and cognitive functioning from pre- to post-treatment. We found significant positive effects for several outcomes without significant heterogeneity including TMS for symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (SMD = -1.8 (95% CI: -2.6 to -1), and tDCS for symptoms of substance use disorder (-0.73, -1.00 to -0.46). There was also significant effects for TMS in obsessive-compulsive disorder (-0.66, -0.91 to -0.41) and unipolar depression symptoms (-0.60, -0.78 to -0.42) but with significant heterogeneity. However, subgroup analyses based on stimulation site and number of treatment sessions revealed evidence of positive effects, without significant heterogeneity, for specific TMS stimulation protocols. For neurocognitive outcomes, there was only significant evidence, without significant heterogeneity, for tDCS for improving attention (-0.3, -0.55 to -0.05) and working memory (-0.38, -0.74 to -0.03) in individuals with schizophrenia. We concluded that TMS and tDCS can benefit individuals with a variety of mental conditions, significantly improving clinical dimensions, including cognitive deficits in schizophrenia which are poorly responsive to pharmacotherapy.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0470.018
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.296 · 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