Maintenance Ketamine Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated ketamine to have a rapid antidepressant effect in some patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but the effect is unfortunately not sustained in the long term. In this study, we report on the clinical use of ongoing maintenance ketamine infusions in a group of patients with TRD, beyond an acute course of 6 to 8 ketamine infusions. METHODS: This retrospective case series reports on 11 patients with TRD who received maintenance ketamine infusions, defined as treatments beyond an initial series of up to 8 infusions. Charts were reviewed to collect data on response to treatment and side effects. RESULTS: All 11 patients in this case series were noted to have a reduction in their Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) score after an acute course of treatment and a lower median BDI-II during their maintenance treatments than their baseline BDI-II. At the study end point, 4 patients were continuing maintenance ketamine and 1 patient had transitioned to maintenance intranasal ketamine. Four patients discontinued ketamine due to loss of effect and 1 due to side effects, and the reason for discontinuation was not noted for the remaining 2 patients. No major adverse events were noted in these patients receiving maintenance treatments, and it was well tolerated overall. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance ketamine treatments may be an effective way of maintaining treatment response in some ketamine responders. Future research is required to determine optimal length of treatment in those who respond to ketamine and to track adverse effects over a longer time.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".