Implementing Electroconvulsive Therapy for Patients Experiencing Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has long been used to treat behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). However, there are no guidelines for the use of ECT in this population. Contributing to efforts addressing this gap in the literature, this qualitative systematic review examines areas of consensus and disagreement in currently published protocols for the use of ECT in BPSD. METHODS: MEDLINE and PsychInfo were searched for primary and secondary literature meeting the aim of this review. All articles were screened, full-text reviewed, and extracted in duplicate. A framework synthesis methodology was used to identify key steps in conducting ECT for BPSD. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included in this systematic review. Although these studies converged on similar indications for using ECT in BPSD, there was significant heterogeneity in the stimulus characteristics used and approaches to maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: ECT holds promise in the treatment of BPSD. Although further research is needed to establish optimal treatment parameters, this review can be used by clinicians to identify potential approaches to using 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".