Faculty Opinions recommendation of Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) for major depressive disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is effective for major depressive disorder (MDD) but its effects on memory limit its widespread use. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) is a potential alternative to ECT that may not adversely affect memory. In the current trial, consecutive patients with MDD consented to receive MST applied over the prefrontal cortex according to an open-label protocol. Depressive symptoms and cognition were assessed prior to, during and at the end of treatment. Patients were treated two to three times per week with high-frequency MST (i.e., 100 Hz) (N = 24), medium frequency MST (i.e., 60 or 50 Hz) (N = 26), or low-frequency MST (i.e., 25 Hz MST) (N = 36) using 100% stimulator output. One hundred and forty patients were screened; 86 patients with MDD received a minimum of eight treatments and were deemed to have an adequate course of MST; and 47 completed the trial per protocol, either achieving remission (i.e., 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score < 10 and a relative reduction of >60% at two consecutive assessments; n = 17) or received a maximum of 24 sessions (n = 30). High-frequency (100 Hz) MST produced the highest remission rate (33.3%). Performance on most cognitive measures remained stable, with the exception of significantly worsened recall consistency of autobiographical information and significantly improved brief visuospatial memory task performance. Under open conditions, MST led to clinically meaningful reduction in depressive symptoms in patients with MDD and produced minimal cognitive impairment. Future studies should compare MST and ECT under double-blind randomized condition. PMID: 31486777
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".