Differential symptom cluster responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can target specific neural circuits, which may allow for personalized treatment of depression. Treatment outcome is typically determined using sum scores from validated measurement scales; however, this may obscure differential improvements within distinct symptom domains. The objectives for this work were to determine: (1) whether a standard depression measure can be represented using a four symptom cluster model and (2) whether these symptom clusters had a differential response to rTMS treatment. Methods: Data were obtained from two multi-centre randomized controlled trials of rTMS delivered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for participants with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) conducted in Canada (THREE-D [Conducted between Sept 2013, and Oct 2016] and CARTBIND [Conducted between Apr 2016 and Feb 2018]). The first objective used confirmatory factor analytic techniques, and the second objective used a linear mixed effects model. Trial Registration: NCT01887782, NCT02729792. Findings: In the total sample of 596 participants with TRD, we found a model consisting of four symptom clusters adequately fit the data. The primary analysis using the THREE-D treatment trial found that symptom clusters demonstrated a differential response to rTMS treatment (F(3,5984) = 31.92, p < 0.001). The anxiety symptom cluster was significantly less responsive to treatment than other symptom clusters (t(6001) = -8.02, p < 0.001). These findings were replicated using data from the CARTBIND trial. Interpretation: There are distinct symptom clusters experienced by individuals with TRD that have a differential response to rTMS. Future work will determine whether differing rTMS treatment targets have distinct patterns of symptom cluster responses with the eventual goal of personalizing rTMS protocols based on an individual's clinical presentation. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Brain Canada.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 it