ArticlePersonalized medicine in psychiatry
Trajectory Modeling and Response Prediction in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depression.
Article in Personalized medicine in psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Latent class modeling of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation response trajectories in treatment-resistant depression.Journal of affective disorders · 2026Article
- Temporal Changes in Affective Symptoms, Headache Burden, and Quality of Life Following rTMS Treatment in Migraine: A Longitudinal Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Precision TMS through the integration of neuroimaging and machine learning: optimizing stimulation targets for personalized treatment.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy could be improved by more accurate and earlier prediction of response. Latent class mixture (LCMM) and non-linear mixed effects (NLME) modeling have been applied to model the trajectories of antidepressant response (or non-response) to TMS, but it is not known whether such models are useful in predicting clinically meaningful change in symptom severity, i.e. categorical (non)response as opposed to continuous scores. Methods: We compared LCMM and NLME approaches to model the antidepressant response to TMS in a naturalistic sample of 238 patients receiving rTMS for treatment resistant depression, across multiple coils and protocols. We then compared the predictive power of those models. Results: LCMM trajectories were influenced largely by baseline symptom severity, but baseline symptoms provided little predictive power for later antidepressant response. Rather, the optimal LCMM model was a nonlinear two-class model that accounted for baseline symptoms. This model accurately predicted patient response at 4 weeks of treatment (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.52 - 0.87]), but not before. NLME offered slightly improved predictive performance at 4 weeks of treatment (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI = [0.58 - 0.94], but likewise, not before. Conclusions: In showing the predictive validity of these approaches to model response trajectories to rTMS, we provided preliminary evidence that trajectory modeling could be used to guide future treatment decisions.
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.