Study of Citalopram combined with modified electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of patients with depressive Alexthymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the efficacy and safety of Citalopram combined with modified electroconvulsive therapy (MECT) in the treatment of patients with depressive Alexthymia.Methods: 54 women patients with depressive Alexthymia were randomly divided into control group (n=27) and study group (n=27).They were respectively given single Citalopram and combined with MECT.Initial dosage of Citalopram was 20 - 40mg/d for two groups and MECT was carried out once every two days for the study group.Clinical effectiveness and side effects were assessed with the Hamilton Depressiveness Scale (HAMD) , the Toronto Alexthymia Scale (TAS) and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS) before and after two weeks treatment.Results: Compared with before treatment, the scores of HAMD in both groups after treatment were lower (P 0.05) and the scores of TAS were higher.There were significant differences in both the scores of HAMD and TAS between two groups after treatment (P 0.01).There were no significant differences in the scores of TESS between two groups after treatment (P0.05).Conclusions: Combined with MECT is better than single Citalopram in the treatment of depressive Alexthymia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".