Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies demonstrated that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an efficacious treatment for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (TRD). Recent metaanalyses and more recent large multicentre studies provided evidence suggesting that rTMS is indeed a promising treatment; however, its efficacy has often been shown to be modest, compared with sham stimulation. We review these lines of evidence and discuss several reasons that may explain the modest therapeutic efficacy in most of these studies, including: most involved left-sided treatment alone to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) only, which may be less optimal than applying bilateral stimulation; suboptimal methods were used to target the DLPFC (that is, the 5-cm anterior method), limiting the treatment potential of inherently a targeted form of treatment; some treatment durations were short (that is, 2 to 4 weeks); and stimulation intensity might have been insufficient by not considering coil-to-cortex distance, which has been linked to rTMS-induced antidepressant response. Future studies attempting to address the above-mentioned limitations are necessary to potentially optimize the efficacy of this already promising treatment option in TRD. Finally, it is also essential that research investigate the mechanisms of therapeutic efficacy, thus increases in understanding can be translated into enhanced treatment. For several reasons that will be reviewed, cortical excitability may represent an important mechanism, linked to the therapeutic efficacy of this disorder.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it