Trial reportDialogues in clinical neuroscience2024
Predictive values of pre-treatment brain age models to rTMS effects in neurocognitive disorder with depression: Secondary analysis of a randomised sham-controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing Brain Age-Specific Effects on the Associations Between Sleep Quality, Glymphatic Function, and Cognition in Normal Ageing Adults: Insights for Gerotherapeutics.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- HK-ASAP study: protocol for a prospective cohort study on sleep quality, brain reserve and cognitive phenotypes in community-dwelling older adults.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- When Age Is More Than a Number: Acceleration of Brain Aging in Neurodegenerative Diseases.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Response prediction for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment.Current opinion in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Article
- Advances in magnetic field approaches for non-invasive targeting neuromodulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOne major challenge in developing personalised repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is that the treatment responses exhibited high inter-individual variations. Brain morphometry might contribute to these variations. This study sought to determine whether individual's brain morphometry could predict the rTMS responders and remitters.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of data from a randomised clinical trial that included fifty-five patients over the age of 60 with both comorbid depression and neurocognitive disorder. Based on magnetic resonance imaging scans, estimated brain age was calculated with morphometric features using a support vector machine. Brain-predicted age difference (brain-PAD) was computed as the difference between brain age and chronological age.
resultsThe rTMS responders and remitters had younger brain age. Every additional year of brain-PAD decreased the odds of relieving depressive symptoms by ∼25.7% in responders (Odd ratio [OR] = 0.743,
conclusionIn elderly patients, younger brain age appears to be associated with better treatment responses to active rTMS. Pre-treatment brain age models informed by morphometry might be used as an indicator to stratify suitable patients for rTMS treatment.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: ChiCTR-IOR-16008191.
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.