Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive behavioral therapy treatment in alcohol-dependent patients: A randomized, double-blind sham-controlled multicenter clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Alcohol dependence (AD) is a complex addictive disorder with a high relapse rate. Previous studies have shown that both repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may be effective for AD, and we aim to explore more effective treatment options to reduce relapse rates for AD. Materials and methods A total of 263 AD patients were recruited. They were divided into six groups according to the location and the type of rTMS: left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), right DLPFC, sham stimulation, and whether they received CBT treatment: with a fixed schedule (C1) and without a fixed plan (C0). There were included in sham rTMS + C0 group (n = 50), sham rTMS + C1 group (n = 37), right rTMS + C0 group (n = 45), right rTMS + C1 group (n = 42), left rTMS + C0 group (n = 49), left rTMS + C1 group (n = 40). We used obsessive compulsive drinking scale (OCDS), visual analogue scale (VAS), alcohol dependence scale (ADS), montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7), patient health questionnaire-9 items (PHQ-9), and Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) to assess alcohol cravings, alcohol dependence, cognition, anxiety, depression, and sleep quality. They were followed up and evaluated for relapse. Results The sham rTMS + C0 group relapse rate was significantly higher than the right rTMS + C1 group (P = 0.006), the left rTMS + C0 group (P = 0.031), the left rTMS + C1 group (P = 0.043). The right rTMS + C0 group showed significantly higher relapse rate compared to the right rTMS + C1 group (P = 0.046). There was no significant difference in relapse rates between other groups. The repeated-measures ANOVA showed an interaction effect between group and time was significant in the rate of patient health questionnaire-9 items (PHQ-9) scale reduction (P = 0.020). Logistic analysis indicated that smoking and alcohol consumption were independent determinants of relapse (P < 0.05). At 24 weeks of follow-up, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis reveal that there is statistically significant relapse rate between six groups (P = 0.025), left rTMS + C1 group has the best treatment effect for alcohol dependent patients. Cox regression analysis confirmed that current smoking, total cholesterol, and total bilirubin (TBIL) level were risk factors of relapse (P < 0.05). Conclusion This study is the first to suggest that the combination of rTMS and CBT may be a potentially effective treatment for reducing relapse.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".