MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313278146 · doi:10.1111/bdi.13288

Proof‐of‐concept randomized controlled trial of single‐session nitrous oxide treatment for refractory bipolar depression: Focus on cerebrovascular target engagement

2022· article· en· W4313278146 on OpenAlexafffund
William S.H. Kim, Mikaela K. Dimick, Danielle Omrin, Rachel Mitchell, Daniel Riegert, Anthony Levitt, Ayal Schaffer, Susan Belo, John Iazzetta, Garfield Detzler, Mabel Choi, Stephen Choi, Nathan Herrmann, Roger S. McIntyre, Bradley J. MacIntosh, Beverley A. Orser, Benjamin I. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation Brain CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsYoung Mania Rating ScaleAnesthesiaNitrous oxideBipolar disorderDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialCerebral blood flowPsychologyMidazolamInternal medicineMajor depressive disorderCardiologyMedicinePsychiatryManiaLithium (medication)Mood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207