Randomized trial examines working-memory changes from prefrontal tDCS in schizophrenia, suggesting baseline severity does not modify response.
Background Cognitive impairment is common in schizophrenia and remains poorly responsive to pharmacological treatment. We examined working-memory change after prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) across baseline cognitive-severity groups and tested whether baseline severity modified response. Methods This complete-case secondary analysis included 120 of 173 randomized participants (62 active tDCS, 58 sham) who completed the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery before and after 10 bifrontal tDCS sessions. K-means clustering of seven baseline domain T-scores identified cognitive-severity groups. Treatment effects were assessed using descriptive comparisons and adjusted mixed-effects models. Benjamini–Hochberg correction was applied jointly across 14 domain-by-group hypotheses, with Holm correction as a sensitivity analysis. To address circularity, groups were re-derived without baseline working memory, and moderation was tested using the time × treatment × group interaction. Results The groups differed mainly in overall cognitive severity rather than profile shape. The active-versus-sham difference in working-memory change was 3.68 T-points (95% CI, 1.57–5.79) in the greater-impairment group and 2.59 T-points (95% CI, 0.90–4.28) in the less-severe-impairment group. Working memory survived joint false-discovery-rate correction in both groups, but Holm correction only in the greater-impairment group. No other domain survived joint correction. After reclustering without baseline working memory, the time × treatment × group interaction was not significant (estimate, 0.93 T-points; 95% CI, −1.71 to 3.56; p = .4915). Conclusions Prefrontal tDCS showed a working-memory signal across both cognitive-severity groups, but baseline severity did not significantly modify response. The groups should be interpreted as positions along a cognitive-severity continuum rather than distinct profiles or subtypes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Munoz-Gualan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: