Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Cognitive Deficits in Depression: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Major depressive disorder is the leading cause of mental health-related burden globally and up to one-third of major depressive disorder patients never achieve remission. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation is a non-invasive intervention used to treat individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Since the last transcranial direct current stimulation review specifically focusing on cognitive symptoms in major depressive disorder, twice as many papers have been published. Methods: A systematic review was conducted with 5 electronic databases from database inception until March 21, 2022. Randomized controlled trials with at least 1 arm evaluating transcranial direct current stimulation in adults (diagnosed with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Classification of Diseases criteria) aged 18 or older were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adopted. Results: : A total of 972 participants were included across 14 studies (60.5% female; mean age of 47.0 years [SD = 16.8]). Nine studies focused on participants with major depressive disorder and all studies used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to diagnose the participants. Seven out of the 14 studies showed significant improvements in at least 1 cognitive outcome measure in the active transcranial direct current stimulation group compared to the sham group. Several cognitive measures were used across studies, and 12 of the 14 studies reported mild-to-moderate side effects from treatment. Conclusion: : Current transcranial direct current stimulation literature has shown limited evidence for the treatment of cognitive impairments in major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Future research that applies machine learning algorithms may enable us to distinguish responders from non-responders, increasing clinical benefits of transcranial direct current stimulation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".