A Retrospective Study of Patients Undergoing Acute Electroconvulsive Therapy for Predominately Manic or Mixed Episodes With and Without Lithium in Singapore
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
OBJECTIVE: The effect of lithium therapy during Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) on cognition and treatment effectiveness is unclear. In this study, we compare the cognitive and symptomatic outcomes of patients undergoing ECT with and without lithium in a large tertiary psychiatric institution. METHODS: Patients with predominantly manic or mixed episodes on lithium were propensity score matched with controls. Cognition was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), while severity of symptoms was assessed using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale. Quality of life was assessed using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) and EuroQol Five Dimension (EQ-5D). Linear mixed-effects modeling and conditional logistic regression were conducted as appropriate. RESULTS: 87 patients were included in the study. There was no significant difference in cognitive and symptomatic outcomes for patients receiving ECT with or without lithium after 6 sessions of ECT. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent lithium administration during the initial acute ECT course was not associated with differential cognitive or symptomatic outcomes. Lithium administration should not be a contraindication for appropriate acute ECT treatment in patients. Larger controlled studies to confirm these findings are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it