MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387503954 · doi:10.1186/s12888-023-05243-4

A naturalistic study comparing the efficacy of unilateral and bilateral sequential theta burst stimulation in treating major depression – the U-B-D study protocol

2023· article· en· W4387503954 on OpenAlexafffund
Molly Watson, Arthur R. Chaves, Abir Gebara, Manon Desforges, Antoinette Broomfield, Noémie Landry, Alexandra Lemoyne, Stacey Shim, Jessica Drodge, Jennifer Cuda, Nasim Kiaee, Youssef Nasr, Christophe Carleton, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Reggie Taylor, Lauri Tuominen, Ram Brender, Ruxandra Antochi, Lisa McMurray, Sara Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOttawa Community Foundation
KeywordsCTBSTranscranial magnetic stimulationMajor depressive disorderDepression (economics)Dorsolateral prefrontal cortexMedicineRandomized controlled trialPsychologyTreatment-resistant depressionBrain stimulationPsychiatryStimulationPrefrontal cortexInternal medicineCognitionPrimary motor cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent mental health condition affecting millions worldwide, leading to disability and reduced quality of life. MDD poses a global health priority due to its early onset and association with other disabling conditions. Available treatments for MDD exhibit varying effectiveness, and a substantial portion of individuals remain resistant to treatment. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), applied to the left and/or right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), is an alternative treatment strategy for those experiencing treatment-resistant MDD. The objective of this study is to investigate whether this newer form of rTMS, namely theta burst stimulation (TBS), when performed unilaterally or bilaterally, is efficacious in treatment-resistant MDD. METHODS: In this naturalistic, randomized double-blinded non-inferiority trial, participants with a major depressive episode will be randomized to receive either unilateral (i.e., continuous TBS [cTBS] to the right and sham TBS to the left DLPFC) or bilateral sequential TBS (i.e., cTBS to the right and intermittent TBS [iTBS] to the left DLPFC) delivered 5 days a week for 4-6 weeks. Responders will move onto a 6-month flexible maintenance phase where TBS treatment will be delivered at a decreasing frequency depending on degree of symptom mitigation. Several clinical assessments and neuroimaging and neurophysiological biomarkers will be collected to investigate treatment response and potential associated biomarkers. A non-inferiority analysis will investigate whether bilateral sequential TBS is non-inferior to unilateral TBS and regression analyses will investigate biomarkers of treatment response. We expect to recruit a maximal of 256 participants. This trial is approved by the Research Ethics Board of The Royal's Institute of Mental Health Research (REB# 2,019,071) and will follow the Declaration of Helsinki. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive assessment of symptoms and neurophysiological biomarkers will contribute to understanding the differential efficacy of the tested treatment protocols, identifying biomarkers for treatment response, and shedding light into underlying mechanisms of TBS. Our findings will inform future clinical trials and aid in personalizing treatment selection and scheduling for individuals with MDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home (#NCT04142996).

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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