Can Brain Volume-Driven Characteristic Features Predict the Response of Alzheimer’s Patients to Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation? A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a post-hoc examination of baseline MRI data from a clinical trial investigating the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a treatment for patients with mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Herein, we investigated whether the analysis of baseline MRI data could predict the response of patients to rTMS treatment. Whole-brain T1-weighted MRI scans of 75 participants collected at baseline were analyzed. The analyses were run on the gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) of the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), as that was the rTMS application site. The primary outcome measure was the Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). The response to treatment was determined based on ADAS-Cog scores and secondary outcome measures. The analysis of covariance showed that responders to active treatment had a significantly lower baseline GM volume in the right DLPFC and a higher GM asymmetry index in the DLPFC region compared to those in non-responders. Logistic regression with a repeated five-fold cross-validated analysis using the MRI-driven features of the initial 75 participants provided a mean accuracy of 0.69 and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 for separating responders and non-responders. The results suggest that GM volume or asymmetry in the target area of active rTMS treatment (DLPFC region in this study) may be a weak predictor of rTMS treatment efficacy. These results need more data to draw more robust conclusions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".