Naturalistic Study on the Effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) on Depressive Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The effectiveness of ECT under naturalistic conditions has not been well-studied. The current study aimed to 1) characterize a naturalistic sample of ECT patients; and 2) examine the long-term outcomes of ECT on depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II; BDI-II) and functional disability symptoms (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) in this sample. Methods Participants were adults who received ECT for a major depressive episode at an ambulatory ECT clinic between September 2010 and November 2020. Clinical and cognitive assessments were completed at baseline ( n = 100), mid-ECT ( n = 94), 2–4 weeks post-ECT ( n = 64), 6-months post-ECT ( n = 34), and 12-months post-ECT ( n = 19). Results At baseline, participants had severe levels of depressive symptoms (BDI-II: M = 41.0, SD = 9.4), and 62.9% screened positive for multiple psychiatric diagnoses on the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Depressive symptoms ( F(4,49.1) = 49.92, P < 0.001) and disability symptoms ( F(3,40.72) = 12.30, P < 0.001) improved significantly following ECT, and this was maintained at 12-months follow-up. Improvement in depressive symptoms trended towards significantly predicting reduction in disability symptoms from baseline to post-ECT, ( F(1,56) = 3.67, P = 0.061). Although our clinical remission rate of 27% (BDI-II score [Formula: see text] 13 and [Formula: see text] 50% improvement) and overall response rate of 41.3% ([Formula: see text]50% improvement in BDI-II score) were lower than the rates reported in the extant RCT and community ECT literature, 36% of those treated with ECT were lost to follow-up and did not complete post-ECT rating scales. At baseline, remitters had significantly fewer psychiatric comorbidities, lower BDI-II scores, and lower disability symptoms than non-responders ( P < 0.05). Conclusions Participants were severely symptomatic and clinically complex. ECT was effective at reducing depressive symptoms and functional disability in this heterogeneous sample. Although a large amount of missing data may have distorted our calculated response/remission rates, it is also likely that clinical heterogeneity and severity contribute to lower-than-expected remission and response rates to ECT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".