Randomised controlled trial comparing different intersession intervals of intermittent theta burst delivered to the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is a form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) that can be administered in a fraction of the time of standard rTMS. Applying multiple daily iTBS sessions (ie, accelerated iTBS) may enable patients to achieve remission more rapidly. However, questions remain regarding the optimal time interval between treatment sessions. OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two accelerated bilateral iTBS protocols (ie, 30-min or 60-min intervals) and a once-daily bilateral iTBS protocol (ie, 0-min interval) while the number of pulses was held constant, in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: 182 patients with TRD were randomised to receive two sessions per day of bilateral iTBS of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC) at 60-min, 30-min or 0-min intervals. Sham treatments were delivered using a shielded 'sham coil' which produced the auditory and tactile sensations of stimulation. The primary outcome measure was a change in depression scores on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) after 20 days of treatment. RESULTS: HRSD-17 scores improved across all groups; however, these improvements did not significantly differ between the three groups after 20 days of treatment. Similarly, response and remission rates did not differ between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that contrary to our original hypothesis, implementing a 30-min or 60-min interval between two treatment sessions of DMPFC-iTBS does not lead to a more rapid improvement in symptoms, than once-daily iTBS administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02778035.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".