Citalopram in the treatment of women with chronic pelvic pain: an open-label trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of citalopram in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain by measuring changes in pain severity, depressive symptoms and functional disability. STUDY DESIGN: Fourteen women between 18 and 50 years of age with chronic pelvic pain were enrolled in a 12-week, open-label, flexible-dose study. Following a single-blind washout, placebo nonresponders were treated with citalopram (20-60 mg/d). RESULTS: Twelve patients completed the study. Depression scores decreased significantly on the Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (p = 0.006), pain severity showed a trend toward improvement on the McGill Pain Intensity Scale (p = 0.096), but there was no significant differences on the Pain Disability Index (p = 0.158). Eleven of 12 (91.7%) patients elected to continue taking citalopram after study completion. CONCLUSION: Citalopram is effective in reducing depressive symptoms, shows a statistical trend toward improvement in pain intensity in women with chronic pelvic pain and is well tolerated. It appears minimally effective in reducing disability. Larger, controlled studies are needed to evaluate the role of citalopram in treating chronic pelvic pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".