MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408636155 · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20240403

Assessment and Management of Concurrent Substance Use in Patients Receiving Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depressive, Obsessive-Compulsive, Psychotic, and Trauma-Related Disorders: A Delphi Consensus Study and Guideline

2025· review· en· W4408636155 on OpenAlexafffund
Victor M. Tang, Scott Aaronson, Mohamed Abdelghani, Chris Baeken, Tracy Barbour, André R. Brunoni, Samuel Bulteau, Linda L. Carpenter, Paul E. Croarkin, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Paul B. Fitzgerald, F. Andrew Kozel, Bernard Le Foll, Urvakhsh Meherwan Mehta, Yoshihiro Noda, Frank Padberg, Christian Plewnia, Hang Su, Philip van Eijndhoven, Eric van Exel, Iris van Oostrom, Fidel Vila‐Rodriguez, Daphne Voineskos, Saydra Wilson, Daniel M. Blumberger

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Institute on Drug AbuseMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthTeijin PharmaVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMichael Smith Health Research BCBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAssurex HealthMiyuki GikenBrainsWaySage TherapeuticsNational Science FoundationBiogenPfizerCentre for Addiction and Mental Health FoundationNational Institute of General Medical SciencesSunovionWeston Brain InstituteWellcome TrustJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceLivaNovaFondation Brain CanadaIndiviorNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAllerganShanghai Municipal Health CommissionNational Institute of Mental HealthPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteMeta
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationGuidelinePsychiatrySubstance useMedicineDelphi methodPsychologyClinical psychologyStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Limited data are available to inform clinicians on how to manage concurrent substance use in the context of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of depressive, obsessive-compulsive, psychotic, or trauma-related disorders. The authors convened an international panel of 24 rTMS experts, representative of different geographic regions and subspecialities, and created a consensus guideline for clinicians and researchers on approaches to concurrent substance use in patients receiving rTMS as treatment for primary psychiatric disorders. METHODS: A Delphi method survey and expert opinion elicited over consecutive rounds of surveys were used, with feedback and discussion after each round. Recommendation statements were established upon very high (≥80%) agreement. RESULTS: Three rounds of surveys and feedback were sufficient to reach a consensus for most topics; where consensus could not be reached, the panel discussed limitations in the current evidence base. Informed by a synthesis of the literature and practice-based evidence, the expert panel provides several consensus recommendations on the topics of screening, monitoring, risk assessment, and mitigation associated with various degrees of substance use, and specific considerations for alcohol, cannabis, stimulants, and opioids. Instead of excluding all people who use substances, a nuanced approach should be taken based on an assessment of risk factors for clinical instability and severity of use. The most important safety risk with substance use is the presence of intoxication or withdrawal states, with the most data supporting seizure risk in unstable alcohol or nonmedical stimulant use. Although there is no evidence of reduced rTMS efficacy for a psychiatric disorder in the presence of concurrent substance use, the lack of data in this area warrants caution. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations can be readily implemented clinically and provide a framework for future research. In patients receiving rTMS for a primary psychiatric disorder, assessment and management of co-occurring substance use is complex, requiring greater attention, standardization, and further study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207