MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224311620 · doi:10.1097/yct.0000000000000853

Electroconvulsive Therapy for Unipolar Depression in Older Adults

2022· review· en· W4224311620 on OpenAlex
Nicholas Morcos, Julie Strominger

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ect · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyDepression (economics)Rating scaleAntidepressantAdverse effectMajor depressive disorderPsychiatryPsychologyRetrospective cohort studyMedicineTreatment-resistant depressionClinical trialInternal medicinePediatricsCognitionAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a safe and effective procedure in unipolar depression in older adults; however, less is known about clinical features and trajectories among patients who do not respond. In this retrospective, naturalistic study, we examine characteristics associated with ECT response among older adults with unipolar depression who received ECT over an 8-year period and describe long-term outcomes for nonresponders. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients 65 years or older with major depressive disorder who were treated with ECT during an 8-year period. We reviewed demographic and clinical factors among patients who responded to ECT and those who did not. Clinic notes were reviewed for ECT nonresponders to determine Clinical Global Impressions scores in the 24 months after ECT treatment. RESULTS: We identified 140 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. Most patients (65%) responded to ECT. Fewer previous antidepressant trials, lower baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, and lower baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores were associated with an increased likelihood of ECT response. Among the 49 (35%) nonresponders, another 12 (24.5%) responded to a variety of treatments within 2 years after ECT. There were no serious adverse effects of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients responded to ECT, many of whom had severe illness that had been refractory to numerous medication trials. Among nonresponders, a subset improved over time through a variety of treatments. However, most patients who did not respond to ECT had persistent depression after 2 years.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.334 · 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