Optimizing Antidepressant Benefits: Effect of Theta Burst Stimulation Treatment in Physically Active People with Treatment-Resistant Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods: Thirty-three healthy, young individuals were divided into two groups undergoing the active (N17) and the sham (N16) protocol.We continuously recorded brain activity during a 10-minute iTBS intervention (2 seconds on, 8 seconds off) targeting the left DLPFC under stereotactic guidance based on each subject's structural MRI.EEG data were preprocessed after extracting 7-second epochs (0.5 to 7.5 seconds) during off -stimulation period between burst trains.We subtracted the power changes of each trial compared to the 7-second epoch before the first stimulation in both groups and averaged over consecutive sets of 10 trials.Data were separately compared for theta and alpha frequency bands across three channels below the coil and between the two intervention groups.Results: Our findings showed a statistically significant effect of intervention in regional alpha power changes between the consecutive burst trains.Conclusion: Compared to sham control, focal iTBS of the left DLPFC has acute effects on the regional expression of alpha oscillatory activity at the sensor level.We will perform source analysis to better delineate the spatial specificity of this findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".