3.4 The therapeutic effect of iTBS on dmPFC is modulated by intrinsic brain dynamics at baseline
depression, affective psychiatric
Prior to assessing the effect of iTBS and the depression subtypes, we checked the integrity of our blinding. After the first treatment day, two thirds of patients in both groups correctly anticipated the treatment allocation. Yet, because there was no difference in the number of patients who correctly guessed their treatment across the two groups, we regarded it as an adequate level of blinding. It should be noted that the number of patients who correctly anticipated their treatment allocation decreased to two-fifths in the active group and increased to four-fifths in the sham group by the last treatment day [In the previous sections, we indicated that the attractor dynamics at baseline dissociates the depression cohort into two subtypes (i.e., DEP1 and DEP2), exhibiting distinct phenotypical behaviors. Next, we assessed whether the two subtypes responded differently to the treatment. Hence, the cohort was grouped with four levels (i.e., Sham:DEP1, n = 10; Sham:DEP1, n = 10; Active:DEP1, n = 10; Active:DEP2, n = 12) for the LiM analysis. The outcome measures were summative scores of depression (i.e., MADRS-S total), affective psychiatric (i.e., BPRS AFF) and negative symptoms (i.e., CAINS). Using bootstrapping of the LiM’s coefficients, we found a significant effect for the interaction of treatment and depression subtypes, for BPRS AFF, 95% 