Feasibility and Preliminary Outcomes of Spaced Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Major Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study explored the feasibility of a spaced transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocol for major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods: Thirty participants with MDD were enrolled in an open-label study to receive 50 tDCS sessions over two weeks.Feasibility, safety, tolerability, and preliminary therapeutic outcomes were evaluated using the HDRS-17 and MADRS at baseline, 1-week, and 4-week follow-ups, and the HDRS-6 was administered daily during treatment.Results: The protocol showed high feasibility, with a retention rate of 93.3% and adherence of 99.7%.No serious adverse events were reported.The most frequent side effects were mild tingling and itching during stimulation (100%) and temporary skin redness (100%), while 64.3% of participants experienced mild contact dermatitis, which resolved in all cases by follow-up.Skin irritation disappeared for most participants by the 1-week follow-up and for the rest by the 4-week follow-up.These side effects did not limit treatment or require intervention.HDRS-17 scores improved from a baseline mean of 21.3 (SD 3.0) to 15.3 (SD 6.3) at 1-week, and 13.2 (SD 7.1) at 4-week follow-up.Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant time effect on HDRS-17 scores (F(2, 52) ¼ 29.131, p < .001,hp 2 ¼ .528).Similar findings were observed on the MADRS.Interaction effects were noted in HDRS-6 scores between time and response groups, particularly between the 1-and 4-week follow-ups (Wilks' Lambda ¼ .165,F(12, 12) ¼ 5.075, p ¼ .004,hp 2 ¼ .835). Conclusion:The protocol was feasible, safe, and well-tolerated, leading to significant symptom reductions.Further validation through shamcontrolled randomized trials, with the inclusion of neurophysiological measures, may enhance understanding of biological mechanisms and support biomarker identification.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".