MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789657216 · doi:10.1097/yct.0000000000000479

Concomitant Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With Ultrabrief Electroconvulsive Therapy

2018· article· en· W2789657216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Prashanth Mayur, Rasha Howari, Karen Byth, Rameswaran Vannitamby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ect · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyTranscranial direct-current stimulationConcomitantPsychologyAnesthesiaDepression (economics)Effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceMedicineStimulationCognitionInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The feasibility and effectiveness of concomitant use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has not been investigated. The study principally aimed at determining whether tDCS when combined with ECT improved the speed of antidepressant response. Secondarily, the ease of generation of seizures during electroconvulsive therapy and cognitive outcomes were investigated. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for ECT to treat major depression were randomized to tDCS with dorsolateral prefrontal electrode placements (n = 8) or sham (n = 8) used daily and just before thrice weekly, 6 times threshold, right unilateral ultrabrief (0.3 ms) pulse width ECT. Change of depression severity was determined using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale along with cognitive assessments using Montreal Cognitive Assessment and visual memory testing at weeks 1 and 2, which were compared with baseline. RESULTS: Change of depression severity from baseline was similar in tDCS and ECT compared with sham tDCS and ECT at week1 (mean [standard deviation {SD}] = 16.00 [6.78]; 13.75 [7.83]; P = 0.89) and at week 2 (mean [SD] = 23.00 [4.96]; 19.75 [9.85], P = 0.08). No between-group differences were obtained in the cognitive tests at weeks 1 and 2. Combining tDCS with ECT resulted in higher restimulation: 62.5% requiring 3 stimulations to achieve threshold in contrast to 12.5% with sham tDCS and ECT (P = 0.04). The mean suprathreshold dose was higher in the tDCS and ECT group compared with sham tDCS and ECT: mean [SD] = 144.0 [43.54] and mean [SD] = 122.4 [20.36], P = 0.04, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of tDCS with ultrabrief right unilateral ECT is feasible and safe albeit with higher rates of restimulation when tDCS was combined with ECT. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the speed of antidepressant response or cognitive outcomes at weeks 1 and 2 after the commencement of treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EctSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207