Intranasal Ketamine for Depression in Patients with Cancer Receiving Palliative Care (INKeD-PC): A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antidepressants require weeks for onset of action, a lag time that may exceed life expectancy in palliative care. Conversely, ketamine has demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of a clinical trial assessing intranasal ketamine for depression in patients with terminal cancer. Feasibility was determined by conducting an open-label trial over a 12-month period. Participants with terminal cancer with moderate to severe depression received three flexible doses of intranasal ketamine (50-150mg) over a one-week period. Three participants completed the trial. All three demonstrated an antidepressant response, with a mean Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score reduction of 64% by the day 8 primary endpoint with good overall tolerability. Feasibility was found to be poor, as recruitment rates were low; however, retention and antidepressant response rates were high. Expanding to other sites and broadening eligibility criteria would be necessary to achieve adequate recruitment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".