MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319349727 · doi:10.1177/20451253231151327

Ketamine and esketamine in suicidal thoughts and behaviors: a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4319349727 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKetaminePsychologyPsychiatryMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: More than 2% of the general population experience suicidal ideas each year and a large number of them will attempt suicide. Evidence-based therapeutic options to manage suicidal crisis are currently limited. Objectives: The aim of this study was to overview the findings on the use of ketamine and esketamine for the treatment of suicidal ideas and acts. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources and methods: PubMed, article references, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to June 30, 2022. Meta-analyses published within the last 2 years were also reviewed. Results: We identified 12 randomized controlled trials with reduction of suicidal ideation as the primary objective and 14 trials as secondary objectives. Intravenous racemic ketamine was superior to control drugs (placebo or midazolam) within the first 72 h, in spite of large placebo effects. Adverse events were minor and transient. In contrast, intranasal esketamine did not differ from placebo in large-scale studies. Limitations, clinical considerations, and opportunities for future research include the following points: large placebo effects when studying suicidal ideation reduction; small concerns about blinding quality due to dissociative effects; no studies on the risk/prevention of suicidal acts and mortality; lack of studies beyond affective disorders; no studies in adolescents and older people; lack of knowledge of long-term side effects, notably liability for abuse; no robust predictive markers; limited understanding of the mechanisms of ketamine on suicidal ideas; need for improved assessment of suicidal ideation in clinical trials; need for studies in outpatient settings, emergency room, and liaison consultation; need for research on ketamine administration; limited knowledge on the positive and negative effects of concomitant treatments. Conclusion: Overall, there is compelling evidence for a favorable short-term benefit-risk balance with intravenous racemic ketamine but not intranasal esketamine. The place of ketamine will have to be defined within a multimodal care strategy for suicidal patients. Caution remains necessary for clinical use, and pharmacovigilance will be essential.

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 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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.415 · 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