Transcranial magnetic stimulation in adolescent depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There are few safe and effective biological treatments for major depression in adolescents. We aimed to report the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a treatment for adolescents with this condition. Methods: The first two subjects in a double-blind, sham-controlled trial of rTMS that is evaluating the efficacy and safety of rTMS in depressed adolescents are described. Clinical response was assessed at baseline and at the end of each week. The following scales were used: Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale, Beck Depression Inventory and Centre for Epidemiological Studies – Depression – Child Scale. A battery of cognitive tests was also used at several intervals to measure potential change in neuropsychological functioning. Results: Random allocation of both subjects was to active treatment. Both subjects improved to a clinically significant degree with rTMS treatment and reported no adverse effects. Neuropsychological testing did not demonstrate any deterioration in the domains of functioning tested. Conclusions: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation shows early promise as a treatment for major depression in adolescents. Well-designed, sham-controlled studies are now indicated to test the efficacy and safety of rTMS in these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".