Proof‐of‐concept randomized controlled trial of single‐session nitrous oxide treatment for refractory bipolar depression: Focus on cerebrovascular target engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There remain few efficacious treatments for bipolar depression, which dominates the course of bipolar disorder (BD). Despite multiple studies reporting associations between depression and cerebral blood flow (CBF), little is known regarding CBF as a treatment target, or predictor and/or indicator of treatment response, in BD. Nitrous oxide, an anesthetic gas with vasoactive and putative antidepressant properties, has a long history as a neuroimaging probe. We undertook an experimental medicine paradigm, coupling in-scanner single-session nitrous oxide treatment of bipolar depression with repeated measures of CBF. METHODS: In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 25 adults with BD I/II and current treatment-refractory depression received either: (1) nitrous oxide (20 min at 25% concentration) plus intravenous saline (n = 12), or (2) medical air plus intravenous midazolam (2 mg total; n = 13). Study outcomes included changes in depression severity (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores, primary) and changes in CBF (via arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging). RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in 24-h post-treatment MADRS change or treatment response. However, the nitrous oxide group had significantly greater same-day reductions in depression severity. Lower baseline regional CBF predicted greater 24-h post-treatment MADRS reductions with nitrous oxide but not midazolam. In region-of-interest and voxel-wise analyses, there was a pattern of regional CBF reductions following treatment with midazolam versus nitrous oxide. CONCLUSIONS: Present findings, while tentative and based on secondary endpoints, suggest differential associations of nitrous oxide versus midazolam with bipolar depression severity and cerebral hemodynamics. Larger studies integrating neuroimaging targets and repeated nitrous oxide treatment sessions are warranted.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".