Sustained Mood Improvement with Laughing Gas Exposure (SMILE): Study protocol for a randomized placebo-controlled pilot trial of nitrous oxide for treatment-resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nitrous oxide has shown potentially as an efficacious intervention for treatment-resistant depression, yet there remains insufficient evidence pertaining to repeated administration of nitrous oxide over time and active placebo-controlled studies with optimal blinding. Thus, we aim to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a six-week follow up study examining the effects of a 4 week course of weekly administered nitrous oxide as compared to the active placebo, midazolam. METHODS: In this randomized, active placebo-controlled, pilot trial, 40 participants with treatment-resistant depression will receive either inhaled nitrous oxide (1 hour at 50% concentration) plus intravenous saline (100mL) or inhaled oxygen (1 hour at 50% concentration) plus intravenous midazolam (0.02 mg/kg in 100mL, up to 2mg) once per week, for 4 consecutive weeks. Participants will be followed up for 6 weeks starting from the first treatment visit. Primary feasibility outcomes include recruitment rate, withdrawal rate, adherence, missing data, and adverse events. The primary exploratory clinical outcome is change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at day 42 of the study. Other exploratory clinical outcomes include remission (defined as MADRS score <10), response (defined as ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS score), and adverse side effects. DISCUSSION: This pilot study will provide valuable information regarding the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of repeated nitrous oxide administration over time for treatment-resistant depression. If feasible, this study will inform the design of a future definitive trial of nitrous oxide as an efficacious and fast-acting treatment for treatment-resistant depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04957368. Registered on July 12, 2021.
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 | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.011 |
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".