A Participant-Level Integrative Data Analysis of Differential Placebo Response for Suicidal Ideation and Nonsuicidal Depressive Symptoms in Clinical Trials of Intravenous Racemic Ketamine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of intravenous (IV) racemic (R,S)-ketamine (hereafter referred to as IV ketamine) have consistently reported rapid and substantial reductions in overall depressive symptoms compared with saline (inactive placebo) or midazolam (active placebo). The evidence for IV ketamine's specific effects on suicidal ideation is less clear, however. This study sought to examine whether differential placebo (saline or midazolam) response to overall depressive symptoms vs suicidal ideation may help explain these divergent findings. METHODS: Data for this participant-level integrative data analysis were drawn from 151 participants across 10 studies, and linear regression was used to examine the relationship between placebo response for suicidal ideation vs other depressive symptoms indexed from standard rating scales-specifically, depressed mood, anhedonia, anxiety, and guilt-over time. RESULTS: For participants receiving saline placebo (n = 46), greater placebo response was observed for suicidal ideation compared with other symptoms indexed from standard depression rating scales, except for anxiety. For those receiving midazolam placebo (n = 105), greater placebo response was observed for suicidal ideation compared with depressed mood or anhedonia, and no significant differences were observed when comparing suicidal ideation with anxiety or guilt. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the results provide preliminary evidence of a differential placebo response for suicidal ideation vs other depressive symptoms, while anxiety and suicidal ideation appear to produce similar placebo response profiles. These findings may help explain the more modest findings in clinical IV ketamine trials for suicidal ideation than overall 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".