MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406934814 · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20240083

Spaced Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depression

2025· article· en· W4406934814 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Couture, Véronique Desbeaumes Jodoin, Emma Bousseau, Arash Sarshoghi, Michael A. Nitsche, Daniel M. Blumberger, Chantal Bolduc, Cory R. Weissman, Lawrence G. Appelbaum, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Mohsen Poorganji, Paul Lespérance, Jean‐Philippe Miron

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationDepression (economics)Current (fluid)NeurosciencePsychologyStimulationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysicsEconomicsKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated spaced transcranial direct current stimulation for major depressive disorder, focusing on feasibility. METHODS: In a prospective open-label study, 30 participants with major depressive disorder were enrolled to receive a 50-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) treatment over 2 weeks. The feasibility, safety, tolerability, and preliminary therapeutic effects of this tDCS protocol were assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at baseline and 1-week and 4-week follow-ups, as well as with the 6-item HAM-D (HAM-D-6) daily during treatment. RESULTS: The protocol demonstrated good feasibility, with a retention rate of 93.3% and an adherence rate of 99.7%. There were no serious adverse events. The most common side effect was a mild tingling and itching sensation during stimulation (100%) and temporary skin redness following stimulation (100%). Additionally, 64.3% of participants presented with mild irritative contact dermatitis, which had disappeared by the 1-week follow-up for most participants and completely resolved by the 4-week follow-up for the remaining cases; this was not treatment limiting and did not require specific treatment. HAM-D-17 scores decreased from a mean of 21.3 (SD=3.0) at baseline to 15.3 (SD=6.3) at 1 week and 13.2 (SD=7.1) at 4 weeks. Depressive symptom severity, as measured by the HAM-D-17, showed significant reductions over time, with similar trends observed on the MADRS. HAM-D-6 scores highlighted important differences between response groups, particularly during the later stages of treatment, suggesting a potential for differential response patterns between the 1-week and 4-week follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The protocol was feasible, safe, and well-tolerated and led to significant reductions in depressive symptoms. These results will need to be validated in a sham-controlled randomized trial. The inclusion of neurophysiological measures in future trials for purposes of biological target engagement might also contribute to our understanding of underlying mechanisms and biomarker discovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207