Functional Connectivity Mapping for rTMS Target Selection in Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocols increasingly use subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC) functional connectivity to individualize treatment targets. However, the efficacy of this approach is unclear, with conflicting findings and varying effect sizes across studies. Here, the authors investigated the effect of the stimulation site's functional connectivity with the sgACC (sgACC-StimFC) on treatment outcome to rTMS in 295 patients with major depression. METHODS: The reliability and accuracy of estimating sgACC functional connectivity were validated with data from individuals who underwent extensive functional MRI testing. Electric field modeling was used to analyze associations between sgACC-StimFC and clinical improvement using standardized assessments and to evaluate sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: An imputation-based method provided reliable and accurate sgACC functional connectivity estimates. Treatment responses weakly but robustly correlated with sgACC-StimFC (r=-0.16), but only when the stimulated cortex was identified using electric field modeling. Surprisingly, this association was driven by patients with strong global signal fluctuations stemming from a specific periodic respiratory pattern (r=-0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Functional connectivity between the sgACC and the stimulated cortex was correlated with individual differences in treatment outcomes, but the association was weaker than those observed in previous studies and was accentuated in a subgroup of patients with distinct, respiration-related signal patterns in their scans. These findings indicate that in a large representative sample of patients with major depressive disorder, individual differences in sgACC-StimFC explained only ∼3% of the variance in outcomes, which may limit the utility of existing sgACC-based targeting protocols. However, these data also provide strong evidence for a true-albeit small-effect and highlight opportunities for incorporating additional functional connectivity measures to generate models of rTMS response with enhanced predictive power.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".