N100 as a response prediction biomarker for accelerated 1 Hz right DLPFC-rTMS in major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and effective treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD); however, this treatment currently lacks reliable biomarkers of treatment response. TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs), measured using TMS-electroencephalography (TMS-EEG), have been suggested as potential biomarker candidates, with the N100 peak being one of the most promising. This study investigated the association between baseline N100 amplitude and 1 Hz right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (R-DLPFC) accelerated rTMS (arTMS) treatment in MDD. Baseline TMS-EEG sessions were performed for 23 MDD patients. All patients then underwent 40 sessions of 1 Hz R-DLPFC (F4) arTMS over 5 days and a follow-up TMS-EEG session one week after the end of theses arTMS sessions. Baseline N100 amplitude at F4 showed a strong positive association ( p < .001) with treatment outcome. The association between the change in N100 amplitude (baseline to follow-up) and treatment outcome did not remain significant after Bonferroni correction ( p = .06, corrected; p = .03, uncorrected). Furthermore, treatment responders had a significantly larger mean baseline F4 TEP amplitude during the N100 time frame compared to non-responders ( p < .001). Topographically, after Bonferroni correction, F4 is the only electrode at which its baseline N100 amplitude showed a significant positive association (p < .001) with treatment outcome. Lack of control group and auditory masking. Baseline N100 amplitude showed a strong association with treatment outcome and thus demonstrated great potential to be utilized as a cost-effective and widely adoptable biomarker of rTMS treatment in MDD. • Baseline F4 N100 amplitude showed a strong association (p<.001) with 1Hz R-DLPFC rTMS treatment outcome. • Treatment responders had a larger mean F4 TEP amplitude during the N100 time frame compared to non-responders (p <.001). • N100 amplitude at F3 and F4 had the strongest association with outcome (F3: p = 0.015, uncorr.; F4 p < .001, corrected). • Our results suggest that N100 amplitude has great potential to be a cost-effective and widely-adoptable biomarker.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".