A Brief Measure for Assessing Patient Perceptions of Cognitive Side Effects After Electroconvulsive Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Directly inquiring about patient experiences of memory problems after ECT may alert clinicians to the existence of treatment side effects and provide an impression of their intrusiveness. In this study, we examined use of a novel and brief patient-reported measure to assess perceptions of memory side effects and their functional consequences before and after an acute ECT treatment course. These outcomes were compared with objective cognitive and subjective quality of life measures. METHODS: Data for 75 patients who were prescribed an acute course of ECT were analyzed. Subjective and objective measures were assessed before ECT (pretreatment) and at posttreatment. Patient perceptions were assessed using the Subjective Assessment of Memory Impairment, which consists of two items: The Memory Problems item, and The Impact of Cognitive Adverse Events item. Objective cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Quality of life was assessed using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form. RESULTS: Patient perceptions of their memory problems did not change across the ECT course, and their functional impact were considered less intrusive after ECT. Greater functional impact of memory impairment was related to poorer quality of life at posttreatment, but not at pretreatment. Subjectively rated cognitive functioning was not associated with objective cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The Subjective Assessment of Memory Impairment is a brief tool for measuring patient-rated memory function. Overall, patients did not report any change in subjective memory problems after ECT. Although perceptions of functional memory impairment and quality of life were related after ECT, there was no association with objectively assessed cognitive outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".