MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416350295 · doi:10.1080/07399332.2025.2568222

Electroconvulsive therapy and women: An international survey

2025· article· en· W4416350295 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Morrison, Sue Cunliffe, Sarah Price Hancock, Chrstopher Harrop, Lucy Johnstone, John Read

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsTraffic Injury Research Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyMoodAdverse effectMEDLINEMood disorders

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

858 electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) recipients, from 44 countries, responded to an online survey. In keeping with previous studies, the majority (73%) were women. Most of the psychiatrists giving ECT (81%) were men. Women patients were less likely than men to report improved mood following ECT. Consistent with previous smaller studies, women patients also reported worse outcomes than men for multiple adverse effects, including anterograde and retrograde memory loss, and for how "harmful" ECT was in general. Even fewer women (15%) than men (29%) said they would want to have ECT again. Implications are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care For Women InternationalSame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207