MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039408619 · doi:10.1097/yct.0b013e31828b3523

A Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Impact of Galantamine on Anterograde Memory Impairment During Electroconvulsive Therapy

2013· article· en· W2039408619 on OpenAlexaff
John Matthews, Caleb J. Siefert, Mark A. Blais, Lawrence T. Park, Charles Welch, Christina M. DuBois, Adrienne O. van Nieuwenhuizen, Kathryn Rooney, Rita C. Seabrook, Lauren E. Durham, Heather C. Adams, Maurizio Fava

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ect · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsResponse Biomedical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalantamineElectroconvulsive therapyPlaceboSchizoaffective disorderPsychologyAdverse effectClinical Global ImpressionDepression (economics)Hamilton Rating Scale for DepressionRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryAnesthesiaMedicineMajor depressive disorderInternal medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychosisCognitionDementiaDonepezil

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) continues to be an effective treatment option for patients who fail to respond to pharmacological interventions, are unable to tolerate medications, and show a suboptimal response to behavioral and psychotherapeutic treatments. However, risks for cognitive impairment may contribute to some patients' refusal of ECT. METHODS: The present study examined galantamine as a pharmacological intervention to reduce cognitive adverse effects from ECT. Thirty-nine inpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder; bipolar disorder, depressed type; or schizoaffective disorder, depressed type and admitted for ECT were randomized to galantamine or placebo. Study drugs were initiated 24 to 48 hours before starting ECT and continued throughout the course of ECT. A neuropsychological test battery was administered at baseline and 24 to 48 hours after completing a course of ECT treatments. Depression severity was monitored using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Clinical Global Impression Scale at baseline, weekly, and end point. Self-rated adverse effects were monitored weekly. RESULTS: Thirty participants (12 patients in the galantamine group, 18 patients in the placebo group) had both pretreatment and posttreatment neuropsychological ratings. Those in the galantamine group scored significantly higher at discharge for delayed memory (t28 = 2.44, P < 0.05). Hierarchical regressions examined if treatment condition predicted changes in delayed memory scores from baseline to discharge. Inclusion of the treatment condition in the final model made a significant incremental improvement in prediction (ΔR = 0.12, F1,27 change = 4.65, P < 0.05; β = 0.37, t = 2.16, P < 0.05). Galantamine was well tolerated with no clinically significant bradycardia or prolonged paralysis when administered with ECT. CONCLUSIONS: Galantamine may be protective against impairment in retention of new learning. Galantamine exhibited minimal adverse effects and was safe when administered during ECT. The present findings require replication by future researchers using larger samples before broad conclusions can be drawn.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EctSame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207