Retreatment with intermittent theta burst stimulation for depression: A retrospective chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective intervention for major depressive disorder. The efficacy of retreatment with rTMS has not been well-characterized, especially with newer forms of rTMS such as theta burst stimulation (TBS). Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the efficacy of retreatment with intermittent TBS (iTBS) in adults who had received a previous course of once daily rTMS (either iTBS or high frequency rTMS to the left prefrontal cortex). Results 47 patients met eligibility criteria for this chart review. The response rate was 36.2 % and remission rate was 19.1 % with retreatment iTBS. Overall, the response rate among those who had previously responded to their initial course of either HFL or iTBS was 44.1 % (36.4 % for those who received HFL and 47.8 % for iTBS) vs. 15.4 % (0 % for those who received HFL and 22.2 % for iTBS) among those who had not previously responded (Fisher's exact p = 0.099). Conclusion Findings from this chart review provide some preliminary information regarding the ‘real world' effectiveness of retreatment iTBS in patients with MDD. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, prospectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".