A randomized sham-controlled trial of high-dosage accelerated intermittent theta burst rTMS in major depression: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), a novel form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), can be administered in 1/10th of the time of standard rTMS (~ 3 min vs. 37.5 min) yet achieves similar outcomes in depression. The brief nature of the iTBS protocol allows for the administration of multiple iTBS sessions per day, thus reducing the overall course length to days rather than weeks. This study aims to compare the efficacy and tolerability of active versus sham iTBS using an accelerated regimen in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). As a secondary objective, we aim to assess the safety, tolerability, and treatment response to open-label low-frequency right-sided (1 Hz) stimulation using an accelerated regimen in those who do not respond to the initial week of treatment. METHODS: Over three years, approximately 230 outpatients at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and University of British Columbia Hospital, meeting diagnostic criteria for unipolar MDD, will be recruited and randomized to a triple blind sham-controlled trial. Patients will receive five consecutive days of active or sham iTBS, administered eight times daily at 1-hour intervals, with each session delivering 600 pulses of iTBS. Those who have not achieved response by the week four follow-up visit will be offered a second course of treatment, regardless of whether they initially received active or sham stimulation. DISCUSSION: Broader implementation of conventional iTBS is limited by the logistical demands of the current standard course consisting of 4-6 weeks of daily treatment. If our proposed accelerated iTBS protocol enables patients to achieve remission more rapidly, this would offer major benefits in terms of cost and capacity as well as the time required to achieve clinical response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04255784.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".