Electroconvulsive therapy with a memory reactivation intervention for post-traumatic stress disorder: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPost-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) often does not respond to available treatments. Memories are vulnerable to disruption during reconsolidation, and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has amnestic effectsObjective/hypothesisTo test the use of ECT to disrupt the reconsolidation of traumatic memories as a potential treatment for PTSDMethodsParticipants were adults from the civilian population and were referred for ECT treatment for severe depression with comorbid PTSD symptoms. Twenty-eight participants were randomly assigned to reactivation of a traumatic or non-traumatic memory using audio script driven imagery prior to each ECT treatment. Primary outcomes were change in scores on the Modified PTSD Symptom Scale - Self Report (MPSS-SR) and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Secondary outcomes included a comparison of the change in heart rate while listening to the scriptResultsTwenty-five female patients who completed a post-ECT assessment were included in the analysis. No significant group differences were found in the MPSS-SR or CAPS-5 scores from pre-ECT to post-ECT or 3-month follow-ups. However, both groups improved at post-ECT and 3-month follow up. Partial eta squared estimates of effect size showed large effect sizes for all outcomes (η2 > 0.13). Changes in heart rate were not significantly different between groups or over timeConclusionsECT paired with pre-treatment traumatic memory reactivation was not more effective for treating PTSD symptoms than ECT with non-traumatic memory reactivation. While our primary hypothesis was not supported, our data provides further support for the efficacy of ECT for improving symptoms of PTSD with comorbid depression.ClinicalTrials.gov.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04027452.IdentifierNCT04027452.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".