Electroconvulsive Therapy Dosage in Continuation/Maintenance Electroconvulsive Therapy: When Is a New Threshold Titration Necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment effects and side effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) depend on the level of applied energy in relation to the individual patient's seizure threshold. The threshold is known to increase during a course of frequently repeated ECT treatments and to return to baseline 6 months after cessation of treatment. In continuation ECT, however, as well as after early relapses, the interval between treatments is often longer than a few days but shorter than 6 months. Seizure thresholds for such cases have not been examined. We retrospectively examined 19 patients who had undergone repeated ECT treatments that had been separated by intervals of at least 14 days. We found significant changes in seizure duration, as measured by EEG and the cuff technique, when treatments were separated by durations exceeding 60 days. This is compatible with a decrease in seizure threshold or a loss of anticonvulsant action after 2 months and indicates the necessity to retitrate seizure threshold after this time.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".