MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401715304 · doi:10.1186/s40345-024-00352-9

Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation in bipolar depression: an open-label treatment study of clinical outcomes, acceptability and adverse events

2024· article· en· W4401715304 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ali-Reza Ghazi-Noori, Rachel D. Woodham, Hakimeh Rezaei, Mhd Saeed Sharif, Elvira Bramon, Philipp Ritter, Michael Bauer, Allan H. Young, Cynthia H.Y. Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bipolar Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchVictoria General Hospital FoundationRosetrees TrustUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research CentreDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftKing's College LondonDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustMichael Smith Health Research BCWellcome TrustMilken Institute
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationTolerabilityDepression (economics)NeurologyBrain stimulationAdverse effectMedicineTreatment-resistant depressionPsychologyPsychiatryStimulationMajor depressive disorderMoodInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for bipolar depression have limited effectiveness, tolerability and acceptability. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a novel non-invasive brain stimulation method that has demonstrated treatment efficacy for major depressive episodes. tDCS is portable, safe, and individuals like having sessions at home. We developed a home-based protocol with real-time remote supervision. In the present study, we have examined the clinical outcomes, acceptability and feasibility of home-based tDCS treatment in bipolar depression. RESULTS: Participants were 44 individuals with bipolar disorder (31 women), mean age 47.27 ± 12.89 years, in current depressive episode of at least moderate severity (mean Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score 24.59 ± 2.64). tDCS was provided in bilateral frontal montage, F3 anode, F4 cathode, 2 mA, for 30 min, in a 6-week trial, for total 21 sessions, a follow up visit was conducted 5 months from baseline. Participants maintained their current treatment (psychotherapy, antidepressant or mood stabilising medication) or maintained being medication-free. A research team member was present by video conference at each session. 93.2% participants (n = 41) completed the 6-week treatment and 72.7% of participants (n = 32) completed the 5 month follow up. There was a significant improvement in depressive symptoms following treatment (mean MADRS 8.77 ± 5.37) which was maintained at the 5 month follow up (mean MADRS 10.86 ± 6.90), rate of clinical response was 77.3% (MADRS improvement of 50% or greater from baseline), and rate of clinical remission was 47.7% (MADRS rating of 9 or less). Acceptability was endorsed as "very acceptable" or "quite acceptable" by all participants. No participants developed mania or hypomania. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, home-based tDCS with real-time supervision was associated with significant clinical improvements and high acceptability in bipolar depression. Due to the open-label design, efficacy findings are preliminary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT05436613 registered on 23 June 2022 https//www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT05436613.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bipolar DisordersSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207