Improving social cognition following theta burst stimulation over the right inferior frontal gyrus in autism spectrum: an 8-week double-blind sham-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The right inferior frontal gyrus (RIFG) is a potential beneficial brain stimulation target for autism. This randomized, double-blind, two-arm, parallel-group, sham-controlled clinical trial assessed the efficacy of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) over the RIFG in reducing autistic symptoms (NCT04987749). Methods Conducted at a single medical center, the trial enrolled 60 intellectually able autistic individuals (aged 8–30 years; 30 active iTBS). The intervention comprised 16 sessions (two stimulations per week for eight weeks) of neuro-navigated iTBS or sham over the RIFG. Fifty-seven participants (28 active) completed the intervention and assessments at Week 8 (the primary endpoint) and follow-up at Week 12. Results Autistic symptoms (primary outcome) based on the Social Responsiveness Scale decreased in both groups (significant time effect), but there was no significant difference between groups (null time-by-treatment interaction). Likewise, there was no significant between-group difference in changes in repetitive behaviors and exploratory outcomes of adaptive function and emotion dysregulation. Changes in social cognition (secondary outcome) differed between groups in feeling scores on the Frith-Happe Animations (Week 8, p = 0.026; Week 12, p = 0.025). Post-hoc analysis showed that the active group improved better on this social cognition than the sham group. Dropout rates did not vary between groups; the most common adverse event in both groups was local pain. Notably, our findings would not survive stringent multiple comparison corrections. Conclusions Our findings suggest that iTBS over the RIFG is not different from sham in reducing autistic symptoms and emotion dysregulation. Nonetheless, RIFG iTBS may improve social cognition of mentalizing others' feelings in autistic individuals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".