Multimodal workflows optimally predict response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with schizophrenia: a multisite machine learning analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response variability to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) challenges the effective use of this treatment option in patients with schizophrenia. This variability may be deciphered by leveraging predictive information in structural MRI, clinical, sociodemographic, and genetic data using artificial intelligence. We developed and cross-validated rTMS response prediction models in patients with schizophrenia drawn from the multisite RESIS trial. The models incorporated pre-treatment sMRI, clinical, sociodemographic, and polygenic risk score (PRS) data. Patients were randomly assigned to receive active (N = 45) or sham (N = 47) rTMS treatment. The prediction target was individual response, defined as ≥20% reduction in pre-treatment negative symptom sum scores of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Our multimodal sequential prediction workflow achieved a balanced accuracy (BAC) of 94% (non-responders: 92%, responders: 95%) in the active-treated group and 50% in the sham-treated group. The clinical, clinical + PRS, and sMRI-based classifiers yielded BACs of 65%, 76%, and 80%, respectively. Apparent sadness, inability to feel, educational attainment PRS, and unemployment were most predictive of non-response in the clinical + PRS model, while grey matter density reductions in the default mode, limbic networks, and the cerebellum were most predictive in the sMRI model. Our sequential modelling approach provided superior predictive performance while minimising the diagnostic burden in the clinical setting. Predictive patterns suggest that rTMS responders may have higher levels of brain grey matter in the default mode and salience networks which increases their likelihood of profiting from plasticity-inducing brain stimulation methods, such as rTMS. The future clinical implementation of our models requires findings to be replicated at the international scale using stratified clinical trial designs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".