What Does the Electroencephalogram Tell Us About the Mechanisms of Action of ECT in Major Depressive Disorders?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) remains to be one of the most effective treatment options in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD). From the early days, researchers have embarked on extracting information from electroencephalography (EEG) recordings before, during, and after ECT to identify neurophysiological targets of ECT and discover EEG predictors of response to ECT in patients with MDD. In this article, we provide an overview of visually detected and quantitative EEG features that could help in furthering our understanding of the mechanisms of action of ECT in MDD. We further discuss the EEG findings in the context of postulated hypotheses of ECT therapeutic pathways. We introduce an alternative and unifying hypothesis suggesting that ECT may exert its therapeutic efficacy through resetting the aberrant functional connectivity and promoting the generation of new and healthy connections in brain regions implicated in MDD pathophysiology, a mechanism that may be in part mediated by the ECT-induced activation of inhibitory and neuroplasticity mechanisms. We further discuss the added value of EEG markers in the larger context of ECT research and as complementary to neuroimaging and genetic markers. We conclude by drawing attention to the need for longitudinal studies in large cohort of patients and the need for standardization and validation of EEG algorithms of functional connectivity across studies to facilitate the translation of EEG correlates of ECT response in routine clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".