Biweekly vs Triweekly low dose intravenous ketamine acute series for severe major depression: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One third of the patients with Major Depression Disorder (MDD) fail to respond to conventional antidepressant treatments - treatment resistant depression (TRD). Low-dose IV ketamine (LDIVK) treatment has become a promising solution for these patients. However, infusion regimens for LDIVK acute series have not been standardized yet. Also, evidence is scarce for retrialing LDIVK treatment to manage MDD symptom recurrences. This is a case study of a 45-year-old female experiencing MDD TRD, who completed a triweekly and a biweekly acute course (4 week) of LDIVK treatment three years apart. Treatment effectiveness was assessed by comparing baseline to weekly depression severity scores using validated psychiatric scales to determine changes in depression symptoms. Tolerability was assessed by systematically registering side effects through the infusions. In both acute series, the patient achieved symptomatic response equivalent to remission. On the triweekly acute course the patient achieved symptom remission by the second week and in the biweekly acute course by the third week. Reported side effects were mild and transient. Results of only one patient included in this report and a different number of LDIVK infusions in each acute course, with the triweekly vs biweekly course providing four additional infusions in four weeks. These results suggest that implementing a triweekly regimen may be well-tolerated and result in a faster treatment response in certain patients, compared to a biweekly regimen. Furthermore, this case also supports the possibility of a ketamine retrial in case of major depressive recurrences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".