MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385668992 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.389

Early Outcomes of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Complex Clinical Population

2023· article· en· W4385668992 on OpenAlexaff
Andriy V. Samokhvalov, Miriam T. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsHomewood Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyDepression (economics)Transcranial magnetic stimulationMoodGeneralized anxiety disorderPopulationObservational studyMedicineMajor depressive disorderPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) is a new emerging neuromodulation treatment that has been tried for multiple psychiatric conditions [1, 2]. Its major approved application is treatment-resistant depression (TRD) [1]. At the same time there is a perceived potential for its use for other clinical conditions, primarily other mood and anxiety disorders [2]. At Homewood Health Centre we have been using rTMS as an adjunct treatment for patients with TRD and multiple comorbidities. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of rTMS in complex clinical populations. Methods Observational study. Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS). Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7). Descriptive statistics. Results We have treated 30 patients, 12 women (40%) and 18 men (60%), with average age of 42.0±15.6 years. All patients had a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The standard questionnaires were used to quantify the severity of depressive symptoms (QIDS) and anxiety (GAD-7). The average baseline scores for depression and anxiety were 16.1±4.9 and 15.0±4.4, respectively. The patients received an average of 28.1±5.1 treatments. All patients but one received the full course of treatment as planned. The average end-of-treatment (EoT) scores for severity of depressive symptoms and anxiety were 9.6±6.5 and 7.3±5.3, respectively. The rates of improvement and remission for depressive symptoms were 66.7% and 36.7%, respectively. The rates of improvement and remission for anxiety symptoms were 76.9% and 30.8%, respectively. Image: Conclusions Our data indicate that rTMS provides significant improvement and recovery rates in complex clinical populations and is well-tolerated. While further research is required, we recommend wider implementation of rTMS for treatment of mood and anxiety disorders. References 1. Brunoni AR, Chaimani A, Moffa AH, Razza LB, Gattaz WF, Daskalakis ZJ, Carvalho AF: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Acute Treatment of Major Depressive Episodes. JAMA Psychiatry 2017, 74(2):143. 2. Somani A, Kar SK: Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: the evidence thus far. Gen Psychiatr 2019, 32(4):e100074. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207