Association of intranasal esketamine, a novel ‘standard of care’ treatment and outcomes in the management of patients with treatment-resistant depression: protocol of a prospective cohort observational study of naturalistic clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Esketamine is the S-enantiomer of racemic ketamine and has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the management of treatment resistant depression, demonstrating effective and long-lasting benefits. The objective of this observational study is to elucidate the association of intranasal (IN) esketamine with beneficial and negative outcomes in the management of treatment resistant major depressive disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre prospective cohort observational study of naturalistic clinical practice. We expect to recruit 10 patients per research centre (6 centres, total 60 subjects). After approval to receive IN esketamine as part of their standard of care management of moderate to severe treatment resistant depression, patients will be invited to participate in this study. Association of esketamine treatment with outcomes in the management of depression will be assessed by measuring the severity of depression symptoms using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and tolerability by systematically tracking common side effects of ketamine treatment, dissociation using the simplified 6-Item Clinician Administered Dissociative Symptom Scale and potential for abuse using the Likeability and Craving Questionnaire (LCQ). Change in depressive symptoms (MADRS total scores) over time will be evaluated by within-subject repeated measures analysis of variance. We will calculate the relative risk associated with the beneficial (reduction in total scores for depression) outcomes, and the side effect and dropout rates (tolerability) of adding IN esketamine to patients' current pharmacological treatments. Covariate analysis will assess the impact of site and demographic variables on treatment outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval to perform this study was obtained through the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board at Queen's University. Findings will be shared among collaborators, through departmental meetings, presented on different academic venues and publishing our manuscript.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".