Cognitive Effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the objective cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). A database search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase was conducted on September 22, 2022, using the search terms "schizophrenia" and "electroconvulsive therapy." The search was limited to the articles published from 1985 to present, in English, and human studies. A total of 4293 articles were identified. After screening by title and full text, 17 articles met eligibility criteria. Controlled, open-label, and retrospective studies of acute, maintenance, or continuation ECT were included. An objective cognitive measure(s) had to be the primary or secondary outcome of the study, with no other interventions administered, besides standard-of-care treatment (ie, antipsychotics). Data regarding the study design, type of ECT provided, cognitive outcome measures, and change in cognitive performance pre- to post-ECT were extracted. Results are presented as a narrative review. Overall, ECT was not associated with any significant cognitive deficits in participants with TRS across the domains of global cognition, attention, language, visuospatial function, and executive function. Findings for immediate effects on memory were equivocal, but the majority of studies found no change or an improvement in memory after treatment. The current evidence supports the conclusion that ECT does not have negative long-term effects on cognition among patients with TRS. Larger, sham-controlled trials are needed to support these conclusions. All studies in this review assessed ECT adjunct to antipsychotics; therefore, the cognitive effects of ECT independent of antipsychotics remain unclear.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".