Clinical effects of continuous theta burst stimulation for generalized anxiety disorder and a mechanism involving α oscillations: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) is a much more rapid protocol than low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), but no clinical trial has yet investigated the efficacy and mechanisms of cTBS for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effects and α oscillations induced by cTBS versus 1 Hz rTMS as predictors of response, and to assess the underlying mechanisms of the therapeutic effects of cTBS in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. Methods We randomly allocated 120 patients with generalized anxiety disorder to receive cTBS ( n = 41), 1 Hz rTMS ( n = 40) or sham cTBS ( n = 39) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; we also included healthy controls ( n = 30) to compare neurophysiological data. We analyzed changes in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores and α oscillations (frequency and power) at baseline, post-treatment and 1-month follow-up. Results After 20 sessions of treatment, patients’ anxiety had improved and α power had increased in the cTBS and 1 Hz rTMS groups. However, at 1-month follow-up the cTBS group had significantly more responders and remitters, and higher α oscillations than the 1 Hz rTMS group (post hoc analysis: cTBS > rTMS > sham). At baseline, α frequency was inversely correlated with psychological symptom scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale ( r = −0.613, p < 0.001); post-treatment, this correlation was present only in the cTBS group ( r = −0.685, p < 0.001). Limitations Electroencephalography data were limited to the α band. Conclusion Our findings provide evidence for the clinical use of cTBS, a novel brain stimulation protocol. Its therapeutic effects may be the result of increasing α frequency, thereby improving the psychological symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".