A single-blind RCT for evaluating the maintenance effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy in relapse prevention in patients with treatment-resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
session will review related international efforts.The presentation will include unpublished data applying biomarker-guided TBS protocols for adolescents with depression failing to respond to prior 1 Hz or 10 Hz treatments.Prior open-label studies of youth have applied TBS to treat depression, depression in patients with autism, and tic disorder.A randomized trial of once-daily iTBS, twice-daily iTBS, and sham, demonstrated tolerability but no difference among three treatment arms.A randomized controlled trial of iTBS for depression and suicidal ideation in adolescents demonstrated clinical benefit with iTBS.Emerging work suggests that accelerated iTBS protocols for adolescents with depression and suicidal thoughts and behaviors are a promising approach.The speaker will review current experiences from studies in progress.There are knowledge gaps concerning precision approaches for selection and sequencing TBS interventions in adolescents.A recent study focused on adolescents with depression who did not respond to 1 Hz or 10 Hz transcranial magnetic stimulation.Patients were offered a two-week course of cTBS or iTBS guided by an intracortical facilitation biomarker within 1 month of prior treatment.A within-subjects linear mixed model analysis of repeated measures revealed an overall significant improvement (decrease) in the Children's Depressive Rating Scale Revised Total from baseline to 6-month follow-up (p0.02;d0.82), with significant pairwise comparisons observed between baseline and week 2 [LSM decrease -5.83 (SE2.21),adjusted p0.04] and baseline and 6-month follow-up [LSM decrease -18.39 (SE7.05),adjusted p0.04].The session will conclude with a conceptual and pragmatic discussion examining the utility of TBS for adolescents and future directions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".