Intranasal racemic ketamine for patients hospitalized with treatment-resistant depression: A retrospective analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research describing ketamine as a treatment for depression has relied on intravenous dosing. There remains a need for more research to support this treatment with other routes of administration. This was a retrospective chart review of 30 patients hospitalized with unipolar or bipolar treatment-resistant depression who were treated with up to four doses of compounded intranasal racemic ketamine (50 mg or 75 mg). Treatment courses lasted up to 7 days. Symptom improvement was measured with either the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. Ketamine was well tolerated with no severe adverse events or treatment discontinuations due to adverse effects. Blood pressures increased by 4-6 mmHg on average with no patients requiring medication to lower blood pressure. Twenty patients (66.7%) were classified as treatment responders based on depression scores decreasing by more than 50%. Among the 27 patients with moderate to severe suicidal ideation scores at baseline, these decreased by 68.5% on average. Overall, the results suggest that compounded intranasal racemic ketamine was safe and effective in the treatment of depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation in a real-world sample of patients hospitalized with treatment-resistant depression. Additional research comparing intranasal ketamine to esketamine and intravenous racemic ketamine is warranted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".