Oscillatory network markers of subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying functional biomarkers related to treatment success can aid in expediting therapy optimization, as well as contribute to a better understanding of the neural mechanisms of the treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation (SCC-DBS). Magnetoencephalography data were obtained from 16 individuals with SCC-DBS for TRD and 25 healthy subjects. The first objective of the study was to identify region-specific oscillatory modulations that both (i) discriminate individuals with TRD (with SCC-DBS OFF) from healthy controls, and (ii) discriminate TRD treatment responders from non-responders (with SCC-DBS ON). The second objective of this work was to further explore the effects of stimulation intensity and frequency on oscillatory activity in the identified brain regions of interest. Oscillatory power analyses led to the identification of brain regions that differentiated responders from non-responders based on modulations of increased alpha (8-12 Hz) and decreased gamma (32-116 Hz) power within nodes of the default mode, central executive, and somatomotor networks, Broca's area, and lingual gyrus. Within these nodes, it was also found that low stimulation frequency had stronger effects on oscillatory modulation than increased stimulation intensity. The identified functional network biomarkers implicate modulation of TRD-related activity in brain regions involved in emotional control/processing, motor control, and the interaction between speech, vision, and memory, which have all been implicated in depression. These electrophysiological biomarkers have the potential to be used as functional proxies for therapy optimization. Additional stimulation parameter analyses revealed that oscillatory modulations can be strengthened by increasing stimulation intensity or reducing frequency, which may represent potential avenues of direction in non-responders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| 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".