Randomized trial demonstrates that scalp-to-cortex distance predicts rTMS response in older adults with depression and cognitive impairment, suggesting utility for personalized dosing.
Neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has shown encouraging efficacy in treating various brain disorders. However, substantial inter-individual heterogeneity in treatment response remains a major challenge. In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, we examined the predictive performance of transcranial features in relation to output measures and responses to rTMS treatment. Fifty-five elderly patients with depression and cognitive impairments were randomly assigned to receive a 3-week treatment of either 10 Hz active rTMS or sham rTMS. Left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and primary motor cortex (M1) were the predefined treatment targets. Scalp-to-cortex distance (SCD) was measured as the Euclidean distance between the scalp stimulation site and the corresponding cortical target. SCD-modified output difference (SCD-MOOD) was developed for quantifying the differences between the actual output and target-specific SCD-adjusted output. Responders to rTMS exhibited a greater SCD of left M1, a lower SCD DLPFC/M1 ratio and a higher SCD-MOOD than nonresponders. Logistic regression analyses revealed that clinical remission to active rTMS was significantly associated with SCD of left M1 ( p = 0.038) and SCD-MOOD ( p = 0.042). Moreover, using SCD metrics as predictive features, the responder-nonresponder classification model achieved an accuracy of 92.5% at week 3 and 86.2% at week 12. Pre-treatment SCD metrics of the stimulation targets can effectively predict early rTMS treatment responses. Predictive models integrating with MRI-derived SCD and SCD-MOOD showed strong specificity for active rTMS compared to sham stimulation. This approach may enable the development of effective, personalized protocols to improve region-specific TMS treatment outcomes in clinical practice. Trial registration ChiCTR-IOR-16008191, registered on March 30, 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05967390
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: