Electroconvulsive Therapy in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on observations of 6 adolescents treated with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and to compare the data with literature data. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study of our division charts of adolescents treated with ECT and hospitalized in the last 20 years. We also undertook a computer search in several databases (including Medline) to identify the reported observations on this treatment. RESULTS: We studied the charts of 6 adolescents aged 14 to 16 years. There were 3 cases of major depressive disorder (including 1 case of delusion of negation), 2 cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and 1 case of schizoaffective disorder with catatonic characteristics. Four adolescents received ECT as a first-line treatment. They were given an average of 9 ECT, which was judged to be efficacious. Tolerance was adequate, and in this series, ECT does not seem to have caused alterations to long-term cognitive functions. No relapse was noted after a minimum of one-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: For some severe psychiatric disorders in adolescents, ECT could be a treatment with a good efficacy and tolerance profile.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".