ArticleResearch square2024
Predictive modeling of response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant depression.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying predictors of treatment response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remain elusive in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Leveraging electronic medical records (EMR), this retrospective cohort study applied supervised machine learning (ML) to sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment-related data to predict depressive symptom response (>50% reduction on PHQ-9) and remission (PHQ-9 < 5) following rTMS in 232 patients with TRD (mean age: 54.5, 63.4% women) treated at the University of California, San Diego Interventional Psychiatry Program between 2017 and 2023. ML models were internally validated using nested cross-validation and Shapley values were calculated to quantify contributions of each feature to response prediction. The best-fit models proved reasonably accurate at discriminating treatment responders (Area under the curve (AUC): 0.689 [0.638, 0.740], p < 0.01) and remitters (AUC 0.745 [0.692, 0.797], p < 0.01), though only the response model was well-calibrated. Both models were associated with significant net benefits, indicating their potential utility for clinical decision-making. Shapley values revealed that patients with comorbid anxiety, obesity, concurrent psychiatric medication use, and more chronic TRD were less likely to respond or remit following rTMS. Patients with trauma and former tobacco users were more likely to respond. Furthermore, delivery of intermittent theta burst stimulation and more rTMS sessions were associated with superior outcomes. These findings highlight the potential of ML-guided techniques to guide clinical decision-making for rTMS treatment in patients with TRD to optimize therapeutic outcomes.
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.