A lack of efficacy of continuous theta burst stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in autism: A double blind randomized sham‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although previous open-label trials suggest the therapeutic potential of inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), methodological caveats exist. We conducted an 8-week randomized, double-blind sham-controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of inhibitory continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS, a variant of rTMS) over the left DLPFC in individuals with ASD. Sixty children, adolescents and young adults (aged 8-30 years) with ASD without co-occurring intellectual disabilities were randomized to a 16-session 8-week cTBS versus sham stimulation course, with a follow-up 4 weeks after the trial. The Active group was not superior to the Sham group in any clinical or neuropsychological metrics at Week 8 or Week 12. Time effects of 8-week cTBS on symptoms and executive function were remarkable in both Active and Sham groups, with comparable response rates and effect sizes of changes in symptoms/cognition between groups. Our results from a sufficiently powered sample do not endorse the superior efficacy of cTBS over the left DLPFC to the shamed stimulation for children, adolescents and adults with ASD. These findings suggest that earlier positive open-label trial findings may be generalized by generalized/placebo effects. This highlights the urgent need for more rTMS/TBS studies with rigorous trial designs in ASD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".