Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gomez (1975) was the first to examine the incidence and severity of subjectively experienced side effects of ECT. She tried to understand why, as she believed, “many patients and their relatives view the prospect of ECT with horror.” She interviewed 96 patients, most of them depressed, 24 hours after each treatment, for a total of 500 consecutive treatments, of which 420 were given with bilateral electrode placement. The self-reported incidence of side effects was remarkably low: Muscle pain topped the list at 8.2%, with subjective memory impairment and headache occurring only about 3% of the time. Surprisingly, subjective complaints were no less frequent in patients receiving unilateral compared with bilateral ECT. The aspect of ECT most disliked by patients who were interviewed after they had received 3 or 4 ECTs related primarily to fear—most frequently, a fear of permanent impairment of memory or intellectual abilities, followed about equally by fear of entering the ECT room, fear of death or serious damage, and the apprehension experienced while simply waiting to receive treatment. A quarter of the sample expressed no special fear or dislike of ECT.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".