Effect of electroconvulsive therapy on hippocampal and amygdala volumes: systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is one of the most effective treatments for depression, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Animal studies have shown that electroconvulsive shock induced neuroplastic changes in the hippocampus. Aims To summarise volumetric magnetic resonance imaging studies investigating the effects of ECT on limbic brain structures. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess volumetric changes of each side of the hippocampus and amygdala before and after ECT. Standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies (n = 193) were selected for our analyses. Both right and left hippocampal and amygdala volumes increased after ECT. Meta-regression analyses revealed that age, percentage of those responding and percentage of those in remission were negatively associated with volume increases in the left hippocampus. CONCLUSIONS: ECT increased brain volume in the limbic structures. The clinical relevance of volume increase needs further investigation. Declaration of interest None.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it