Memantine: a review of possible uses in child and adolescent psychiatry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of published literature regarding the pharmacology of memantine and potential benefits for use in child and adolescent psychiatry. METHOD: A LITERATURE SEARCH OF SEVERAL DATABASES (MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL, PSYCARTICLES) WAS CONDUCTED WITH THE SEARCH TERMS: 'memantine' with limits: English language, Human trials, all child (aged 0-18 years). The search was later expanded to include 'Adults' and relevant articles were also selected from reference lists. RESULT: The search did not find any well-controlled studies in children and adolescents except for open label trials, as monotherapy in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as an augmenting agent in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). No study was found in anxiety disorders (AD), the most common psychiatric disorder in children or in mood disorders, both major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). Studies in adults for those disorders with onset in childhood or adolescence, were also mostly open-label and as an add-on therapy. All the studies reported that memantine is a safe drug with minimal drug interactions and a very acceptable adverse effect profile comparable to placebo. CONCLUSION: Memantine has demonstrated beneficial effects in some childhood disorders but the evidence is too limited at present and does not provide enough support of its efficacy to advocate for its regular use in those conditions. Such use remains off-label until further validation of efficacy comes from blinded, randomized, placebo controlled studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".