A Review of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Use in the Treatment of Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with schizophrenia often fail to respond to standard antipsychotic medications or have a partial treatment response. Few treatment options are available for these patients. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was developed and investigated over the last 10 years as a potential treatment option for various psychiatric conditions. Increasingly, studies are focusing on potential applications of rTMS in schizophrenia. To date, most of these studies were symptom-specific rather than focused on the treatment of the disorder in general. The most extensive literature focuses on the use of low-frequency stimulation to attempt to disrupt or reduce the intensity of persistent refractory auditory hallucinations. This research tends to suggest that rTMS could have a role in this subset of patients. There is also preliminary but limited evidence that rTMS could have a role in reducing the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and perhaps in augmenting cognitive function. These findings also highlight the pressing need for further research including multisite studies to confirm the value of these options.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".