ArticleBioelectronic medicine2024
Machine learning-optimized non-invasive brain stimulation and treatment response classification for major depression.
Article in Bioelectronic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01894815 (Escitalopram and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Major Depressive Disorder), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Escitalopram and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Major Depressive Disorder: a Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning and individual variability in electrical field characteristics predict tDCS treatment response for anxiety in older adults in the ACT trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Recent Advancements of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Machine Learning: Methods, Challenges, and Opportunities.Transactions on artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Methods of Computational Modelling in Studies of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Adults to Inform Protocols for Tinnitus Treatment: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Dose standardization for transcranial electrical stimulation: an accessible approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Characterization of responders to transcranial direct current stimulation in disorders of consciousness: A retrospective study of 8 clinical trials.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Article
- Develop and validate machine learning models to predict the risk of depressive symptoms in older adults with cognitive impairment.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Distinct resting state neural activity in chronic pain patients who respond to transcranial electric stimulation for pain relief.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation intervention that shows promise as a potential treatment for depression. However, the clinical efficacy of tDCS varies, possibly due to individual differences in head anatomy affecting tDCS dosage. While functional changes in brain activity are more commonly reported in major depressive disorder (MDD), some studies suggest that subtle macroscopic structural differences, such as cortical thickness or brain volume reductions, may occur in MDD and could influence tDCS electric field (E-field) distributions. Therefore, accounting for individual anatomical differences may provide a pathway to optimize functional gains in MDD by formulating personalized tDCS dosage.
methodsTo address the dosing variability of tDCS, we examined a subsample of sixteen active-tDCS participants' data from the larger ELECT clinical trial (NCT01894815). With this dataset, individualized neuroimaging-derived computational models of tDCS current were generated for (1) classifying treatment response, (2) elucidating essential stimulation features associated with treatment response, and (3) computing a personalized dose of tDCS to maximize the likelihood of treatment response in MDD.
resultsIn the ELECT trial, tDCS was superior to placebo (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.7 to 5.5; P = 0.01]). Our algorithm achieved over 90% overall accuracy in classifying treatment responders from the active-tDCS group (AUC = 0.90, F1 = 0.92, MCC = 0.79). Computed precision doses also achieved an average response likelihood of 99.981% and decreased dosing variability by 91.9%.
conclusionThese findings support our previously developed precision-dosing method for a new application in psychiatry by optimizing the statistical likelihood of tDCS treatment response in MDD.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.