Resting and TMS-EEG markers of treatment response in major depressive disorder: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) is a non-invasive method to identify markers of treatment response in major depressive disorder (MDD). In this review, existing literature was assessed to determine how EEG markers change with different modalities of MDD treatments, and to synthesize the breadth of EEG markers used in conjunction with MDD treatments. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from 2000 to 2021 for studies reporting resting EEG (rEEG) and transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with EEG (TMS-EEG) measures in patients undergoing MDD treatments. The search yielded 966 articles, 204 underwent full-text screening, and 51 studies were included for a narrative synthesis of findings along with confidence in the evidence. In rEEG studies, non-linear quantitative algorithms such as theta cordance and theta current density show higher predictive value than traditional linear metrics. Although less abundant, TMS-EEG measures show promise for predictive markers of brain stimulation treatment response. Future focus on TMS-EEG measures may prove fruitful, given its ability to target cortical regions of interest related to MDD.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".