Frontoparietal paired associative stimulation versus single-site stimulation for generalized anxiety disorder: a pilot rTMS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At present, the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is limited to single-site interventions. We investigated whether dual-site frontoparietal stimulation delivered using cortical-cortical paired associative stimulation (ccPAS) had stronger clinical efficacy than single-site stimulation in patients with GAD. METHODS: We randomized 50 patients with GAD to 1 Hz rTMS (10 sessions) using 1 of the following protocols: single-site stimulation over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC; 1500 pulses per session); single-site stimulation over the right posterior parietal cortex (PPC; 1500 pulses per session); repetitive dual-site ccPAS (rds-ccPAS) over the right dlPFC and right PPC with 1500 pulses per session (rd-ccPAS-1500); or rds-ccPAS over the right dlPFC and right PPC with 750 pulses per session (rd-ccPAS-750). Both rds-ccPAS treatments used a between-site interval of 100 ms. RESULTS: Clinical scores for anxiety, depression and insomnia were reduced in all 4 groups after treatment. We found greater improvements in anxiety symptoms in the rds-ccPAS-1500 group compared to the rds-ccPAS-750 and single-site groups. We found greater improvements in depression symptoms and insomnia in the rds-PAS-1500 group compared to the single-site groups. The rds-ccPAS-1500 group also showed significant or trend-level improvements in anxiety symptoms and insomnia at 10-day and 1-month followup. More patients responded to treatment with rds-ccPAS-1500 than with single-site stimulation. The between-group differences in response rates persisted to the 3-month follow-up. Treatment using rds-ccPAS with a between-site interval of 100 ms induced a more significant improvement than the between-site interval of 50 ms we evaluated in a previous study. LIMITATIONS: These results need to be replicated in a larger sample using sham control and equal-pulse single-site stimulation. CONCLUSION: Frontoparietal rds-ccPAS may be a better treatment option for GAD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".