ArticleBrain and behavior2022
Sex differences in rTMS treatment response: A deep learning-based EEG investigation.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical effects and correlates of standard rTMS and theta burst stimulation (TBS) on suicidal ideation in late-life depression.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025Trial
- Higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts poor response to repetetive transcranial magnetic stimulation(rTMS) in treatment resistant depression.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2025Article
- Engineering and Technological Advancements in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS): A Five-Year Review.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Contribution of glial cells to the neuroprotective effects triggered by repetitive magnetic stimulation: a systematic review.Neural regeneration research · 2024Review
- Sex differences in rTMS treatment response: A deep learning-based EEG investigation.Brain and behavior · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe present study aimed to investigate sex differences in response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) patients. Identifying the factors that mediate treatment response to rTMS in MDD patients can guide clinicians to administer more appropriate, reliable, and personalized interventions.
methodsIn this paper, we developed a novel pipeline based on convolutional LSTM-based deep learning (DL) to classify 25 female and 25 male patients based on their rTMS treatment response.
resultsFive different classification models were generated, namely pre-/post-rTMS female (model 1), pre-/post-rTMS male (model 2), pre-rTMS female responder versus pre-rTMS female nonresponders (model 3), pre-rTMS male responder vs. pre-rTMS male nonresponder (model 4), and pre-rTMS responder versus nonresponder of both sexes (model 5), achieving 93.3%, 98%, 95.2%, 99.2%, and 96.6% overall test accuracy, respectively.
conclusionThese results indicate the potential of our approach to be used as a response predictor especially regarding sex-specific antidepressant effects of rTMS in MDD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.