Subgenual cingulate connectivity as a treatment predictor during low-frequency right dorsolateral prefrontal rTMS: A concurrent TMS-fMRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is effective in alleviating treatment-resistant depression (TRD). It has been proposed that regions within the left DLPFC that are anti-correlated with the right subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC) may represent optimal individualized target sites for high-frequency left rTMS (HFL). Objective/hypothesis This study aimed to explore the effects of low-frequency right rTMS (LFR) on left sgACC connectivity during concurrent TMS-fMRI. Methods 34 TRD patients underwent an imaging session that included both a resting-state fMRI run (rs-fMRI 0 ) and a run during which LFR was applied to the right DLPFC (TMS-fMRI). Participants subsequently completed four weeks of LFR treatment. The left sgACC functional connectivity was compared between the rs-fMRI 0 run and TMS-fMRI run. Personalized e-fields and a region-of-interest approach were used to calculate overlap of left sgACC functional connectivity at the TMS target and to assess for a relationship with treatment effects. Results TMS-fMRI increased left sgACC functional connectivity to parietal regions within the ventral attention network; differences were not significantly associated with clinical improvements. Personalized e-fields were not significant in predicting treatment outcomes (p = 0.18). Conclusion This was the first study to examine left sgACC anti-correlation with the right DLPFC during an LFR rTMS protocol. In contrast to studies that targeted the left DLPFC, we did not find that higher anti-correlation was associated with clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that the antidepressant mechanism of action of LFR to the right DLPFC may be different than for HFL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".