MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electroconvulsive Therapy Dosage in Continuation/Maintenance Electroconvulsive Therapy: When Is a New Threshold Titration Necessary?

2004· article· en· W1969888344 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ect · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept Iles
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapySeizure thresholdAnesthesiaAnticonvulsantMedicineElectroencephalographyPsychologyEpilepsyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it