MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905463695 · doi:10.1097/yct.0000000000000560

Ketamine Versus Midazolam for Depression Relapse Prevention Following Successful Electroconvulsive Therapy

2018· article· en· W2905463695 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ect · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyKetamineMedicineMidazolamRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Clinical trialRelapse preventionTreatment-resistant depressionAnesthesiaPsychiatryPsychologyAntidepressantInternal medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Anxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Depression relapse after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is common (40% at 6 months). Ketamine has a robust antidepressant effect, but there are no reported studies of ketamine for depression relapse prevention. This pilot trial (NCT02414932) was designed to assess feasibility of the proposed trial protocol, including examining reasons for nonrecruitment, nonrandomization, and dropout. METHODS: Patients with unipolar depression referred for ECT were monitored weekly for therapeutic response, using the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (monitoring phase). Those who met standard response criteria were invited to be randomized to a course of 4 once-weekly infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or the active comparator, midazolam (0.045 mg/kg), over 40 minutes to examine trial processes (treatment phase). Participants were followed up for 6 months after ECT to assess for relapse. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five referrals were screened over 18 months, and 68% of eligible participants (n = 43) were recruited to the monitoring phase; 60.5% of participants met ECT response criteria (n = 26), but only 26% (6) of these consented to take part in the treatment phase. These were randomized (3 to ketamine and 3 to midazolam), and no participant completed the 4-week treatment protocol. Information was gathered on reasons for nonrecruitment, nonrandomization, and dropout, which included practical aspects of infusions and lack of interest in further treatment after response to ECT. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed treatment protocol is not suitable for a definitive trial in our center. Information collected on reasons for dropout may inform future clinical trials of intravenous ketamine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02414932.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.323 · 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