MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997749250 · doi:10.1159/000114604

Acute Effects of ECT on the Cerebral Circulation in Man

2008· article· en· W1997749250 on OpenAlexaff
John W. Lovett Doust, R. Barchha, R.S.Y. Lee, Matthew Little, J.S. Watkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnesthesiaAtropineElectroconvulsive therapyHemodynamicsCerebral circulationDepression (economics)MedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acute cerebral haemodynamic effects of modified ECT were monitored by electrical impedance piethysmography in four patients with schizophrenia and three with depression. A total of 20 recordings were made on these patients; of these, 19 involved the following segments, in sequence: a rest period of 25–115 min, a short period in which Atropine, Brietal, and succinylcholine were given by injection, administration of the ECT, monitoring of post-ECT effects for 10 min, and, finally, a recovery period of up to 120 min was recorded. An identical procedure, save for the omission of ECT in one of the patients, formed the 20th recording. Results were considered significant if they were given by a majority of the 19 ECT recordings. No impedance changes took place during the pre-drug resting period nor following the pre-medication drugs. The acute effects of ECT were shown by electrical impedance changes during the 10 min immediately following it. These implied a surging increase in CBF and persisted during the recovery phase. No such changes occurred when ECT was omitted, and the results suggested that these cerebral circulatory changes formed part of the therapeutic action of ECT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean NeurologySame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207