The science behind Connectoma

Cole EJ et al. (2022)

Remission of 78.6% versus 13.3% with sham stimulation.

Kratter IH et al. (2026)

Remission of 50.0% versus 20.8% with sham (p=0.035); a frontal EEG biomarker predicts response.

Cole EJ et al. (2020)

90.5% remission after 5 days of treatment.

Williams NR et al. (2018)

5 of 6 patients responded in the first fMRI-guided accelerated protocol.

Gajawelli N et al. (2024)

The SNT protocol increased anticorrelation between the left DLPFC and the default mode network.

Batail JM et al. (2023)

Modulation of the amygdala–default mode circuit (p<0.001), sustained at one month.

Mitra A et al. (2023)

The SNT protocol reverses aberrant anterior cingulate signaling (sgACC biomarker).

Li B et al. (2024)

Response on suicidal ideation of 90.6% at 4 weeks.

Li K et al. (2024)

60% remission and no mania in bipolar I disorder.

Raj KS et al. (2024)

71% remission and 0% mania in bipolar disorder.

Geoly AD et al. (2024)

The antidepressant effect was reproduced consistently with retreatment.

Geoly AD et al. (2025)

33% remission at 12 weeks without maintenance treatment.

Fox MD et al. (2012)

DLPFC–sgACC anticorrelation predicts efficacy (r²=0.66).

Taylor et al. (2026)

fMRI targeting achieved 80% response versus 60% with the standard method.

Fox MD et al. (2013)

Individualized targets outperform group coordinates (p<10⁻⁴).

Siddiqi SH et al. (2021)

Convergent causal DLPFC–sgACC circuit across 3 modalities (p<0.001).

Weigand A et al. (2018)

Connectivity to the sgACC prospectively predicts response.

Cash RFH et al. (2019)

Connectivity to the sgACC predicts response in an independent cohort.

Cash RFH et al. (2021)

Distance to the optimal target was 30 mm; R=−0.60 with clinical response.

Mayberg HS et al. (2005)

Identifies the sgACC as a central node of depression.

Solomon et al. (2026)

TMS over the DLPFC suppresses high-frequency activity in the sgACC.

O'Reardon JP et al. (2007)

Remission roughly double that of sham at week 6 (basis of the first FDA clearance).

Blumberger DM et al. (2018)

iTBS as effective as rTMS: 3 min versus 37.5 min per session.

Mutz J et al. (2019)

iTBS OR 3.20 and HF-rTMS OR 3.17 versus sham.

Brunoni AR et al. (2017)

OR versus sham: HF-rTMS 3.07 and iTBS 2.54.

Wang et al. (2017)

Relapse: TMS plus antidepressant 15.9% versus medication alone 44.4% (p<0.001).

Rossi S et al. (2021)

Seizure risk <0.1%, with no cognitive or tissue damage.

Ørbo et al. (2026)

Daily iTBS beats sham at day 10 (42% vs 22%); not persistent at 4 weeks.

Carmi L et al. (2019)

Response in OCD: 38.1% versus 11.1%; NNT=3.7 (FDA clearance).

Zangen A et al. (2021)

Smoking abstinence at 4 weeks: 17.1% versus 7.9% (FDA clearance).

Tavares DF et al. (2017)

Response in bipolar depression: 48% versus 24%; 0% mania.

Fox et al. (2026)

MRI-navigated TMS: 85% response versus ~60% sham at one month in combat PTSD.

Ventura et al. (2026)

TMS effective in bipolar depression (d=0.40); mania risk equal to sham.

Lefaucheur JP et al. (2020)

Level A for depression; Level B for OCD and addictions.

Caulfield KA et al. (2022)

Seizure rate of 0.0023%, lower than that of conventional TMS.

Tendler, Hanlon et al. (2026)

Accelerated TMS (5 sessions/day × 6 days) non-inferior to standard TMS; remission ~7 days sooner.

Sonmez AI et al. (2019)

Accelerated TMS effective (Hedges g=0.39 in randomized trials).

Gongwer et al. (2026)

Accelerated iTBS restores prefrontal dendritic spines lost to stress.

Real-world clinical data (preprint) (2025)

fMRI-guided TMS: 77.4% response versus 66.3% without fMRI; NNT=6.5.

Drysdale AT et al. (2017)

Four brain biotypes; biotype 1 responds ~3 times better to TMS.

Tozzi L et al. (2024)

Six biotypes; the cognitive biotype is the best responder to TMS.

Williams LM et al. (2024)

Baseline DLPFC–dACC connectivity stratifies candidates for TMS.

Liston C et al. (2014)

TMS normalizes hyperconnectivity between the sgACC and default mode network.

Taylor et al. (2026)

The anxiosomatic target (DMPFC) reduces anxiety 58% versus 36% with the DLPFC target.

Wan et al. (2026)

An EEG biomarker (dSI) predicts the response to TMS.