MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407934366 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2024.12.302

TMS-EEG Biomarkers of Suicidal Ideation

2025· article· fr· W4407934366 on OpenAlexaff
Noah Stapper, Yinming Sun, Mohsen Poorganji, Itay Hadas, Reza Zomorrodi, Paul B. Fitzgerald, Daniel M. Blumberger, Lawrence G. Appelbaum, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Cory R. Weissman

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationElectroencephalographyPsychologyIdeationMedicineNeuroscienceClinical psychologyMedical emergencySuicide preventionPoison controlCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicidal ideation (SI) has a lifetime prevalence of 10%, is associated with severe psychiatric illness, and is a leading risk factor for suicide.Despite this societal burden, the neurophysiological basis of SI remains poorly understood.In a recent systematic review exploring interventions for SI, we found preliminary evidence suggesting an association between changes in SI and activity in the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices.However, included studies lacked methodological standardization and averaged 35 participants.To expand our understanding of SI, we are presently conducting a large analysis of neurophysiological biomarkers of SI utilizing concurrent transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG).For this ongoing study, cross-sectional singlepulse TMS-EEG targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC) were aggregated from five clinical trials across three sites.Data preprocessing was standardized using an automated pipeline.Of 239 patients diagnosed with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), 25 were excluded from the analysis following independent quality control of the TMSevoked potentials (TEP) by three researchers.SI was quantified using the suicide item derived from either the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or the Mongomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale.Patients were grouped into: 1) no suicidal ideation (n77), 2) wish to die without active suicidal thoughts (n77), and 3) thoughts of suicide and/or suicide plans (n60).Preliminary analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) from 25 to 275 ms demonstrated no significant differences between groups for both the Global Mean Field Amplitude (GMFA) and signal in the LDLPFC (F3, F5, FC3, and FC5), according to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).Future planned analyses include TEP peak, time-frequency dynamics, and connectivity patterns.The results of this large-scale, multi-site secondary analysis comparing TMS-evoked EEG potentials in TRD patients with varying levels of SI may inform the development of objective, neurophysiologically-informed diagnostic tools, and novel targets for precision treatments for SI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207