MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412981723 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.05.053

Psychometric network analysis of depression symptoms after a course of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression

2025· article· en· W4412981723 on OpenAlexaff
Enoch Ng, Sean M. Nestor, Nir Lipsman, Clement Hamani, Jennifer S. Rabin, Peter Giacobbe

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Transcranial magnetic stimulationPsychologyStimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryClinical psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients and methods: 12 patients diagnosed with intractable Chronic Cluster Headache, aged from 24 to 60 years, were enrolled in a prospective open study.4 out of 11 failed occipital nerve stimulation(ONS).One patient received ONS 12 months after hypothalamic DBS.A single electrode was laid on the floor of the third ventricle.The number of attacks was collected at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 months postoperatively, then at long term (9-113 months).Besides physical and laboratory monitoring, patients' mood was regularly assessed.Results: This study reports the long term efficacy of third ventricle stimulation in reducing the number of headache attacks: 3/11 patients are pain free or have >80% improvement, 5/11 have >50% improvement, 2/11 show lesser improvement, while 2/11have no significant improvement.Anxiety and Depression scores are also significantly ameliorated.No severe adverse events have been reported so far.Conclusion: This technic could be a surgical alernative when all technics have failed to treat rCH .It has shown efficacy, although it appears to progressively dampen its impact in some patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

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 topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207