The Role of Ketamine in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bipolar depression remains a clinical challenge with a quarter of patients failing to respond to initial conventional treatments. Although ketamine has been extensively studied in unipolar depression, its role in bipolar disorder remains inconclusive. The aim of our scoping review was to comprehensively synthesize the current clinical literature around ketamine use in bipolar depression. A total of 10 clinical studies (5 randomized controlled trials and 5 open label studies) were selected. The preliminary evidence, albeit weak, suggests that ketamine is a promising treatment and calls for further interest from the research community. Overall, ketamine treatment appeared to be tolerable with minimal risk for manic/hypomanic switching and showed some effectiveness across parameters of depression and suicidality. Moreover, ketamine is a potential treatment agent in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression with promising data extracted from extant controlled trials and real-world effectiveness studies. Future studies are needed to identify ketamine's role in acute and maintenance treatment phases of bipolar depression. Moreover, future researchers should study the recurrence prevention and anti-suicidal effects of ketamine in the treatment of bipolar 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".