Predicting treatment response to ketamine in treatment-resistant depression using auditory mismatch negativity: Study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ketamine has recently attracted considerable attention for its rapid effects on patients with major depressive disorder, including treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Despite ketamine's promising results in treating depression, a significant number of patients do not respond to the treatment, and predicting who will benefit remains a challenge. Although its antidepressant effects are known to be linked to its action as an antagonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, the precise mechanisms that determine why some patients respond and others do not are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the computational mechanisms underlying changes in the auditory mismatch negativity (MMN) response following treatment with intravenous ketamine. Moreover, we aim to link the computational mechanisms to their underlying neural causes and use the parameters of the neurocomputational model to make individual treatment predictions. METHODS: This is a prospective study of 30 patients with TRD who are undergoing intravenous ketamine therapy. Prior to 3 out of 4 ketamine infusions, EEG will be recorded while patients complete the auditory MMN task. Depression, suicidality, and anxiety will be assessed throughout the study and a week after the last ketamine infusion. To translate the effects of ketamine on the MMN to computational mechanisms, we will model changes in the auditory MMN using the hierarchical Gaussian filter, a hierarchical Bayesian model. Furthermore, we will employ a conductance-based neural mass model of the electrophysiological data to link these computational mechanisms to their neural causes. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study may improve understanding of the mechanisms underlying response and resistance to ketamine treatment in patients with TRD. The parameters obtained from fitting computational models to EEG recordings may facilitate single-patient treatment predictions, which could provide clinically useful prognostic information. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05464264. Registered June 24, 2022.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".