MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320898540 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.01.810

Right orbitofrontal rTMS benefits patients with treatment-resistant depression after unsuccessful DLPFC rTMS

2023· article· en· W4320898540 on OpenAlexaff
Ylka Kolken, Christina Clark Tuttle, Joris van Neijenhof, Richard Pitch, Iris van Oostrom, Jonathan Downar, Martijn Arns, Nikita van der Vinne

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDorsolateral prefrontal cortexOrbitofrontal cortexDepression (economics)AnhedoniaTranscranial magnetic stimulationMajor depressive disorderAnxietyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyInternal medicinePrefrontal cortexMoodSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)StimulationCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a clinically effective treatment in major depressive disorder (MDD) when targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Yet, at least 44% of patients do not achieve remission, requiring validated alternatives, such as orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) targeted rTMS. Preliminary results employing 1Hz OFC-rTMS show 30% of patients achieving response (i.e. reduction of ≥50% in MDD symptoms) who were initially non-responsive to DMPFC-rTMS. In the current study, we aimed to replicate the previously reported results, and to identify variables that may predict treatment outcome and symptom response patterns specific to OFC-rTMS. Two groups of MDD patients (n1=25 and n2=17), located in the Netherlands and the United States respectively, underwent 1Hz OFC-rTMS after non-response to DLPFC-rTMS. On average, group 1 patients received 42 DLPFC sessions, followed by 24 OFC sessions. In group 2, 21 DLPFC sessions were followed by 21 OFC sessions. Collected data included age, sex, depression severity over the course of treatment (BDI-II), and medication use. The group 1 data also included sleep quality (PSQI, HSDQ), baseline anxiety and stress (DASS), and baseline EEG individual alpha peak frequency (iAPF). Our results show that both treatment groups achieved 24% remission (BDI score≤12). In group 1, said remission was irrespective of age, sex, medication use or baseline symptom severity. Similar analyses in group 2 are ongoing. Further results will be presented at the conference, clarifying whether a priori defined variables predict treatment outcome, such as an anhedonia symptom cluster, dysphoric vs anxiosomatic clusters, and the EEG derived iAPF. Moreover, we will explore the effects of OFC-rTMS on sleep quality and specific depression symptoms. OFC-rTMS may be an effective consideration for non-responders to DLPFC-rTMS. Predictors for response to OFC-rTMS may enable future treatment stratification, benefitting patients by reducing the number of rTMS sessions. Research Category and Technology and Methods Clinical Research: 10. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Keywords: TMS, OFC, DLPFC, Major depressive disorder

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207