Increased electro-convulsive therapy stimulus intensity and cognitive functioning in manic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Temporary changes in cognitive functions after electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) have been documented. The researchers are exploring if increasing the stimulus intensity of ECT produce better recovery from psychopathology also trying to map effects of increased stimulus intensity on side effects profile including cognitive functions. In the present study, we are reporting effects of increased stimulus intensity of ECT on cognitive functions in manic patients.Methods: The present study is a prospective analytical case control study conducted in the department of psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health and Hospital, Agra, after getting clearance from hospital ethical committee. The study included 60 patients with the diagnosis of manic psychopathologyfrom May 2018 to September 2019. Sample was divided into two groups: 1.5 times of threshold and 2.0 times of threshold. The ECT was delivered as per specified protocol of the study. The scores on Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) were compared both within and between groups at baseline and follow up.Results: The results suggested that both level of stimulus intensity produced mild level of disruptions in cognitive functioning at follow ups and the higher stimulus intensity i.e. 2.0 times of threshold resulted in more impairment in cognitive functions.Conclusions: The impact of ECT by increasing its current intensity for two times, on cognitive functions as seen clinically, suggested no serious adverse effects on any of the patients included in the sample.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".