MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926538821 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6665363.v1

Safety and tolerability of intramuscular and sublingual ketamine for psychiatric treatment in the Roots To Thrive ketamine-assisted therapy program: a retrospective chart review

2023· other· en· W6926538821 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityKetamineAdverse effectDosingMental healthIntramuscular injection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:In the last few years, ketamine is becoming increasingly common in the treatment of mental health conditions, but there is a lack of safety data informing intramuscular and sublingual dosing in a community-focused group psychotherapy setting. The Roots To Thrive ketamine-assisted therapy (RTT-KaT) program is a unique 12-week RTT-KaT program with 12 community of practice (a form of group therapy) sessions and three ketamine medicine sessions.Objectives:This study reports on adverse effects of intramuscular and sublingual ketamine dosing in a community group psychotherapy setting among 128 participants across four cohorts.Design:Retrospective chart review.Methods:A chart review of the RTT-KaT Program was performed retrospectively on four cohorts (<i>n</i> = 128) that participated in 448 sessions running between September 2020 and December 2021. Baseline characteristics and adverse events were captured including medication administration before, during, and after RTT-KaT sessions. Analyses by session and by individual were conducted. Chi-square test with Yates’ continuity correction was used to assess side effects in subgroups from ketamine administration.Results:RTT-KaT was well tolerated with none of the 128 participants dropping out of the program. Primarily, of the 448 sessions, 49.16% had elevated blood pressures post-KaT session by session. In terms of other adverse effects, 12.05% of participant-sessions experienced nausea, 2.52% had an episode of vomiting, 3.35% had a headache, and seven participant-sessions experienced dizziness. Analysis by individual revealed congruent findings.Conclusion:These findings suggest good safety and tolerability for RTT-KaT among individuals seeking treatment for mental health issues. The majority of participants did not experience adverse reactions and the adverse events that were recorded involved transient symptoms that were resolved with rest and/or medications. The group therapy model described provides a comprehensive approach and presents a promising model for operating a KaT program in a community setting.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataSame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207