Electroconvulsive therapy treatment in patients with somatic symptom and related disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medically unexplained somatic complaints are highly prevalent, and lead to significant impairment and disability. The number of effective treatment modalities for somatic symptom and related disorders (SSDs) or somatoform disorders (SDs) remains limited. To date, there is no formal indication for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in SSD or SD. We report on the largest case series to date regarding the effectiveness of ECT in patients with SSD and SD. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients treated with an index course of ECT at the Neuropsychiatric Program at the University of British Columbia Hospital from 2000 to 2010 was conducted. The primary outcomes consisted of changes in pseudoneurologic symptoms, pain symptoms, cardiopulmonary symptoms, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Complaints were examined pre- and post-ECT. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants were included in this study. Twenty-one participants received right unilateral ECT. Six received bifrontal ECT. One received bitemporal ECT. Eighteen of 21 participants reported improvement in pseudoneurologic symptoms; eleven of 14 participants reported improvement in pain symptoms; one participant reported improvement in cardiopulmonary symptoms; and one of two participants reported improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms. This paper discusses the putative mechanism of action of ECT in the treatment of SD/SSD. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study suggests that ECT could be included as part of the existing treatment for refractory SSD and SD, particularly in refractory cases with comorbid mood disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".