Efficacy and safety of racemic ketamine and esketamine for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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
BACKGROUND: Racemic ketamine and esketamine have demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects. We aimed to review the efficacy and safety of racemic and esketamine for depression. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA-guided review for relevant randomized controlled trials of racemic or esketamine for unipolar or bipolar major depression from database inception through 2021. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses using pooled rate ratios (RRs) and Cohen's standardized mean differences (d) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We found 36 studies (2903 participants, 57% female, 45.1 +/- 7.0 years). Nine trials used esketamine, while the rest used racemic ketamine. The overall study quality was high. Treatment with any form of ketamine was associated with improved response (RR=2.14; 95% CI, 1.72-2.66; I2=65%), remission (RR=1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.02; I2=39%), and depression severity (d=-0.63; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.45; I2=78%) against placebo. Overall, there was no association between treatment with any form of ketamine and retention in treatment (RR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01; I2<1%), dropouts due to adverse events (RR=1.56; 95% CI, 1.00-2.45; I2<1%), or the overall number of adverse events reported per participant (OR=2.14; 95% CI, 0.82-5.60; I2=62%) against placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine and esketamine are effective, safe, and acceptable treatments for individuals living with depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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