Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation implementation within residential substance use disorder treatment centers for patients with comorbid depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a well-established treatment with efficacy for several psychiatric disorders and has yielded promising yet mixed data showing reductions in craving for substance use. Patients with substance use disorders and comorbid depression may encounter obstacles to receiving rTMS in outpatient settings for treatment of depression. In turn, implementation of rTMS in residential substance use programs would greatly benefit those with comorbid treatment resistant depression. This paper aims to provide recommendations for implementing rTMS within residential substance use treatment centers. Design/methodology/approach Using PubMed, the authors conducted a narrative review of manuscripts using various combinations of the following search terms: rTMS, depression, substance use and substance use disorder. The authors read manuscripts for their methodology, outcomes and adverse events to synthesize their results, which correspond to their recommendations for patient selection, safely implementing rTMS in residential substance use facilities and optimal rTMS protocols to start with. Findings Advantages of this approach include increased compliance, monitoring and access to care. Recommendations to safely incorporate rTMS in residential substance use disorder treatment centers revolve around selection of patients eligible for rTMS, allowing for sufficient time to elapse prior to commencing rTMS, monitoring for signs of recent substance use or withdrawal and using rTMS protocols compatible with the therapeutic programming of a treatment center. Originality/value This paper details the challenges and benefits of implementing rTMS for patients with dual diagnosis and provides recommendations to safely do so. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is a novel and unpublished endeavor.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".