Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bachelor thesis focuses on electroconvulsive therapy from a research and clinical perspective. Special emphasis is placed on cognitive impairment as one of the most serious side effects of electroconvulsive therapy. It also briefly summarizes the historical development and current good practice in electroconvulsive therapy. It presents several hypotheses on the mechanism of action of electroconvulsive therapy and briefly discusses the technical aspect of this treatment method. Future perspectives and new variants of convulsive methods are described with emphasis on Low Amplitude Seizure Therapy. The proposed research aims to compare the degree of cognitive impairment when using electroconvulsive therapy and its new variant Low Amplitude Seizure Therapy. A sub-objective is to map the profile of cognitive impairment with Low Amplitude Seizure Therapy alone, as no such research exists to date. A battery of cognitive tests consisting of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, and the Columbia University Autobigraphical Memory Interview - Short Form was constructed for research purposes. Keywords electroconvulsive therapy, Low Amplitude Seizure Therapy, cognitive function, retrograde amnesia, major depressive disorder, MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".