Connectivity-guided, interleaved iTBS-fMRI demonstrates subcortical target engagement in treatment-resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A valid and reliable sham method is essential to rigorously test the behavioral and neurophysiologic effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation.Over time, there has been concern that certain sham methods are biologically active.In a sham-controlled cTBS trial, we had similar concerns that the sham electrode configuration could induce an electric field that reaches the brain.Methods: In a double-blind, sham-controlled trial investigating the ability of cTBS targeting the left DLPFC to enhance hypnotizability, 40 individuals were randomized to the sham condition.Initially, sham stimulation was delivered at a higher intensity ("Sham 7"; n 17), but later lowered due to the concerns raised above ("Sham 1"; n 23).We assessed hypnotizability using the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP).We compared blinding integrity between groups (chi-square test) and differences in behavioral effects between groups (Mann-Whitney U Test).Results: Most participants guessed they received active treatment (Sham 1: 69.6%; Sham 7: 58.8%; p .481).Hypnotizability was not significantly different from baseline in either of the sham subgroups (mean DHIPSD, Sham 1: 0.130 1.712, p 0.644; Sham 7: 0.544 1.626, p 0.325).There was a significant difference in HIP change between the active and combined sham groups (U 601, p 0.046).The difference was not significant between active and Sham 7 (U 287, p 0.336), while it remained significant between active and Sham 1 (U 314, p 0.028).Discussion: There were no significant differences in behavioral effects or blinding integrity between sham conditions.However, Sham 7 attenuated the significance of the observed effect in the active group.These data suggest that lower sham settings do not compromise blinding integrity.Thus, because higher settings may have some level of biologically relevant effects, we recommend future studies to use lower sham settings.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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".