MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415747036 · doi:10.1177/07067437251369226

Deep Brain Stimulation to the Subgenual Cingulate Gyrus for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial and 2-Year Long-Term Follow-Up: Stimulation cérébrale profonde du gyrus cingulaire subgénual pour traiter la dépression résistante au traitement : Essai contrôlé à répartition aléatoire et suivi à long terme sur deux ans

2025· article· fr· W4415747036 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Peter Giacobbe, Sakina J. Rizvi, Amanda K. Ceniti, George Tomlinson, Gavin J.B. Elias, Jürgen Germann, Rima Styra, Andrés M. Lozano, Sidney H. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationRandomized controlled trialStimulationGyrusDepression (economics)Crossover studyRating scaleAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Trials of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to the subcallosal cingulate gyrus (SCG) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have yielded mixed results. While open-label studies suggest effectiveness, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not consistently supported these findings. The study compared the efficacy of active versus sham SCG stimulation for TRD. Methods Participants ( n = 35) in a major depressive episode and treatment resistance completed a 6-month double blind, crossover RCT, with an 18-month open-label phase. A Balaam design was applied with participants randomized to 1 of 4 stimulation groups over two 3-month phases. The primary outcome was a change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score at 6 months, with response defined as ≥50% reduction in HDRS-17 scores. Results While all groups showed improvement at 3 and 6 months, no significant differences were found among them. The OFF–OFF group had a numerically lower HDRS-17 score compared to the ON–ON group at the end of the RCT. No unexpected adverse events occurred. During the open-label phase, participants showed sustained reduction in HDRS-17 scores at 12, 18, and 24 months post-implantation, with successive observed-case response rates of 65.7%, 69%, and 73.1%, respectively. Improvements in life functioning were also noted. Conclusions This trial represents the largest single-centre, sham-controlled study of SCG DBS for TRD in the literature. Although the RCT showed no significant group differences, most participants achieved response during the open-label phase. Safety outcomes aligned with previous trials. Future RCTs should integrate insights from the past decade of DBS for TRD research to optimize outcomes. Key considerations include selecting DBS contact locations that ensure engagement of critical white matter tracts, employing novel and sufficiently long clinical trial designs to account for the non-specific effects of the DBS procedure, as well as incorporating biomarkers to guide DBS programming.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→