Optimizing antidepressant benefits: Effect of theta burst stimulation treatment in physically active people with treatment-resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a promising therapy for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), but a significant proportion of individuals do not respond adequately, necessitating alternative approaches. This study explores whether individuals meeting minimum recommended physical activity levels demonstrate better responses to TBS compared to physically inactive individuals. Using data from a randomized controlled trial (n = 43), participants were categorized as physically active or inactive based on baseline International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) scores. Depression scores (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, 17-item; HRSD-17) were assessed at baseline, 4, and 6 weeks of TBS treatment. A significant Time X Group effect adjusted for age and baseline depression was observed. Physically active individuals consistently exhibited lower depression scores across time points. At 4 and 6 weeks, there was a significant increase in between-group differences, indicating that the physically active group derived greater benefits from treatment. At 6 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of responders (≥50 % HRSD-17 reduction) were observed in the physically active compared to inactive group. Physical activity significantly contributed to regression and logistic models predicting treatment response. These findings support the potential role of baseline physical activity in enhancing TBS therapy for MDD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".