MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036308499 · doi:10.1097/yct.0000000000000236

Use of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Adolescents With Treatment-Resistant Depressive Disorders

2015· article· en· W2036308499 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ect · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyMedicinePsychiatryDepression (economics)PsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study presents a comprehensive case series of adolescents who received electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treatment-resistant depression. METHODS: Conducting a chart review, we identified 13 adolescents who had ECT for treatment of depression over a 5-year interval (2008-2013) at a Canadian tertiary care psychiatric hospital. Details about participants' clinical profile, index course of ECT, outcome, side effects, and comorbidities were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Thirteen adolescents aged 15 to 18 years, received a mean of 14 (SD, 4.5) ECT sessions per patient. Based on the Beck Depression Inventory-II at baseline and after treatment with ECT, a reliable improvement was observed in 10 patients, with 3 achieving full recovery. Through mixed effects linear modeling, we found a decrease of 0.96 points (95% CI, -1.31 to -0.67, P < 0.001) on the Beck Depression Inventory-II total score for every ECT treatment received. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was used for monitoring of cognitive function throughout the treatment. Adverse effects included transient subjective cognitive impairment (n = 11), headache (n = 10), muscular pain (n = 9), prolonged seizure (n = 3), and nausea and/or vomiting (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: A clinically significant improvement was observed for 10 (77%) adolescents receiving ECT for treatment-resistant depression. These observations suggest that ECT is a potential treatment option for refractory depression in selected adolescents. More data are needed to draw conclusions about efficacy and possible predictors of treatment response.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.256 · 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