ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2025
Predicting rTMS treatment response in schizophrenia using interpretable machine learning: a SHAP-based analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Individual responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in schizophrenia vary, and predictive clinical tools are lacking. Objectives: To develop and interpret machine learning models predicting individual rTMS treatment response using baseline clinical features. Design: Exploratory, hypothesis-generating study using retrospective patient data with internal validation and interpretability analysis. Methods: We analyzed 156 patients with schizophrenia, assessing baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores. Machine learning models (Random Forest, XGBoost, support vector machine, logistic regression) were trained on demographic and clinical features. Performance was evaluated via cross-validation and a temporal hold-out test set. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) were used for model interpretation. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (all Conclusion: Despite modest group-level efficacy, interpretable machine learning models identified baseline features associated with individual response to rTMS. These findings can inform personalized interventions, though future external validation is needed. Trail registration: Not applicable.
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.