Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Treatment Reduces Variability in Brain Function in Schizophrenia: Data From a Double-Blind, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS: There is increasing awareness of interindividual variability in brain function, with potentially major implications for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) efficacy. We perform a secondary analysis using data from a double-blind randomized controlled 4-week trial of 20 Hz active versus sham rTMS to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) during a working memory task in participants with schizophrenia. We hypothesized that rTMS would change local functional activity and variability in the active group compared with sham. STUDY DESIGN: 83 participants were randomized in the original trial, and offered neuroimaging pre- and post-treatment. Of those who successfully completed both scans (n = 57), rigorous quality control left n = 42 (active/sham: n = 19/23), who were included in this analysis. Working memory-evoked activity during an N-Back (3-Back vs 1-Back) task was contrasted. Changes in local brain activity were examined from an 8 mm ROI around the rTMS coordinates. Individual variability was examined as the mean correlational distance (MCD) in brain activity pattern from each participant to others within the same group. RESULTS: We observed an increase in task-evoked left DLPFC activity in the active group compared with sham (F1,36 = 5.83, False Discovery Rate (FDR))-corrected P = .04). Although whole-brain activation patterns were similar in both groups, active rTMS reduced the MCD in activation pattern compared with sham (F1,36 = 32.57, P < .0001). Reduction in MCD was associated with improvements in attention performance (F1,16 = 14.82, P = .0014, uncorrected). CONCLUSIONS: Active rTMS to DLPFC reduces individual variability of brain function in people with schizophrenia. Given that individual variability is typically higher in schizophrenia patients compared with controls, such reduction may "normalize" brain function during higher-order cognitive processing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".