Motor cortical plasticity in adolescents with early onset schizophrenia: A TMS‐EMG study assessing the perturbation effect of intermittent and continuous theta burst stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuroplasticity in adolescents is distinct from that of adults. Literature pertaining to neuroplasticity in schizophrenia is limited to adult populations. AIM: We aimed to assess baseline (or resting) cortical excitability and cortical plasticity in adolescents with schizophrenia using the transcranial magnetic stimulation-electromyography (TMS-EMG) protocol. METHODS: Twenty adolescent cases with schizophrenia and 20 age and gender matched healthy controls were studied using a crossover design. Single pulse TMS elicited resting motor threshold (RMT) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were assessed. Cortical plasticity was determined by tracking MEPs after a single session continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) up to 120 min at 12 intervals. RESULTS: Baseline (or resting) cortical excitability was found to be significantly lower in cases compared with controls. Response patterns to cTBS and iTBS were similar between the crossover. While cTBS led to inhibitory response, iTBS had an excitatory effect in both the groups. In the cases, while cTBS led to significantly greater initial inhibitory response, iTBS led to significantly lower excitatory response, compared with controls. The time taken to return to baseline excitability was significantly longer after receiving cTBS for cases, compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: iTBS and cTBS lead to excitatory and inhibitory response, representing classical long-term depression and long-term potentiation effects, respectively, in both cases and controls. We conclude that adolescents with schizophrenia have significantly lower baseline (resting) cortical excitability as well as significantly greater inhibitory plasticity; excitatory plasticity is significantly lower.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".