Pilot study of accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation for inpatients with treatment depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To investigate the feasibility, tolerability, and effectiveness aiTBS (accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation) treatment for inpatients with treatment resistant depression (TRD). Methods: Inpatients with Depression were recruited for the open label single arm interventional study. Subjects received aiTBS treatment (5 sessions a day for 5 consecutive days, resting motor threshold of 120%, triplet 50 Hz bursts, repeated at 5 Hz; 2s on and 8s off; 600 pulses per session; total duration of 3 min 9 s; with a 50-minute interval between sessions). Assessments included Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-16), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and EQ-5D-3L at baseline (T1), immediately after treatment (T2), and 1-month post treatment (T3). Results: 18 inpatient subjects were recruited over 1 year [age: 27.9 years (SD 7.1), 72.2% female] and 14 (77.6%) had failed 3 or more antidepressants for the current episode of depression. With intent-to-treat analysis, depression scores improved significantly and durably from T1 to T2 and T3 [MADRS: 34 (SD 8.27) to 16.7 (SD 9.3) to 17.8 (SD 10) / QIDS-16: 21.1 (SD 5.9) to 13.4 (SD 7.0) to 13.9 (SD 7.5)]. Response rates at T2/T3 were 41.2%/50% and remission rates at T2/T3 were 17.6%/25% respectively. Cognition scores were unchanged [MoCA: 29.0 (SD 1.4) to 28.5 (SD 1.6) to 29.2 (SD 0.8)] and quality of life scores improved at T2 and trended towards a worsening result at T3 [EQ-5D-3L Utility score: 0373 (SD 0.36) to 0.59 (SD 0.35) to 0.49 (SD 0.36)]. Conclusions: aITBS is effective and safe for inpatients with TRD. Conflicts of interest: None Funding: The study was funded by the Institute of Health (Singapore) internal research fund. Disclosures: None
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".