Oral ketamine for depression: An updated systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist that can be used to treat major depressive disorder by single or repeated infusions. However, the accessibility and scalability of oral ketamine make it preferred over intravenous ketamine. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral ketamine, esketamine and r-ketamine for unipolar and bipolar depression. Materials and methods: Electronic databases were searched from inception to September 2022 to identify relevant articles. Results: Twenty-two studies, including four randomized clinical trials (RCTs), one case series, six case reports, five open-label trials and six retrospective chart review studies involving 2336 patients with depression were included. All included studies reported significant improvement following ketamine administration. Ketamine was well tolerated without serious adverse events. However, RCTs had a high risk of bias due to analysis methods and adverse events monitoring. Ketamine dosage varied from 0.5 to 1.25 mg/kg. The frequency of administration was daily to monthly. Several important limitations were identified, most notably the small number of RCTs. Conclusions: Taken together, preliminary evidence suggests the potential for antidepressant effect of oral ketamine. However, further research with large sample size and long follow-up period is needed to better determine the antisuicidal effect and efficacy in treatment-resistant 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it