Five-factor personality and antidepressant response to intermittent theta burst stimulation for major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Five-factor personality has been examined in relation to the natural history of depression and its response to treatment. With respect to rTMS, several five-factor personality dimensions have been associated with treatment outcomes, and open-label data suggests that neuroticism decreases with high-frequency stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Here, we examine the relationship between five-factor personality dimensions and antidepressant response leveraging a randomized placebo-controlled trial using the partial N-methyl- D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor agonist, D-Cycloserine, to enhance intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS). Methods In a 4-week double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, fifty individuals with major depressive disorder (NCT03937596) received iTBS+Placebo or iTBS+D-Cycloserine (100mg). Participants completed the Big Five Inventory to assess five-factor personality dimensions, and depressive symptoms were assessed using the clinician rated Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale at baseline and after the 4-weeks of treatment. Results There was no significant association between five-factor personality dimensions and change in depressive symptoms for either treatment group. Although iTBS+D-Cycloserine was associated with significantly greater antidepressant effect than iTBS+Placebo, neuroticism decreased with similar magnitude in each treatment group. Openness to experience and conscientiousness increased following treatment, and did so with similar magnitudes in both treatment groups. Conclusions These data suggest that five-factor personality may not predict antidepressant treatment outcomes with iTBS for major depressive disorder, and that decreases in neuroticism that have been reported in open-label TMS studies may reflect non-specific factors of treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".