MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212826549 · doi:10.1007/s40263-022-00897-2

Non-parenteral Ketamine for Depression: A Practical Discussion on Addiction Potential and Recommendations for Judicious Prescribing

2022· article· en· W4212826549 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

VenueCNS Drugs · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsAdlerSTART ClinicProfessional Engineers OntarioLakehead UniversityGrey Nuns Community HospitalUniversity of CalgaryMisericordia Community HospitalNOSM UniversityTranslational Research in OncologyUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKetamineContext (archaeology)MedicineAddictionIntensive care medicinePsychiatryTreatment-resistant depressionDepression (economics)MoodMajor depressive disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intravenous (IV) ketamine is increasingly used off-label at subanesthetic doses for its rapid antidepressant effect, and intranasal (IN) esketamine has been recently approved in several countries for treating depression. The clinical utility of these treatments is limited by a paucity of publicly funded IV ketamine and IN esketamine programs and cost barriers to private treatment programs, as well as the drug cost for IN esketamine itself, which makes generic ketamine alternatives an attractive option. Though evidence is limited, use of non-parenteral racemic ketamine formulations (oral, sublingual, and IN) may offer more realistic access in less rigidly supervised settings, both for acute and maintenance treatment in select cases. However, the psychiatric literature has repeatedly cautioned on the addictive potential of ketamine and raised caution for both less supervised and longer-term use of ketamine. To date, these concerns have not been discussed in view of available evidence, nor have they been discussed within a broader clinical context. This paper examines the available relevant literature and suggests that ketamine misuse risks appear not dissimilar to those of other well-established and commonly prescribed agents with abuse potential, such as stimulants or benzodiazepines. As such, ketamine prescribing should be considered in a similar risk/benefit context to balance patient access and need for treatment with concern for potential substance misuse. Our consortium of mood disorder specialists with significant ketamine prescribing experience considers prescribing of non-parenteral ketamine a reasonable clinical treatment option in select cases of treatment-resistant depression. This paper outlines where this may be appropriate and makes practical recommendations for clinicians in judicious prescribing of non-parenteral ketamine.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · 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