Variations in response to citalopram in men and women with alcohol dependence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the differential effects of citalopram on alcohol consumption in nondepressed women and men with mild to moderate alcohol dependence. DESIGN: Prospective, placebo-controlled study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one subjects (34 men and 27 women). INTERVENTIONS: After a 2-week baseline, subjects were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of citalopram (40 mg per day) (n = 15 women, 16 men) or placebo (n = 12 women, 18 men). All received brief standard psychosocial interventions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Alcohol Dependence Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale, Michigan Alcohol Screening Test, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and daily alcohol intake. RESULTS: Pretreatment sex differences were evident in alcohol consumption, alcohol dependence, alcohol-related problems and on anxiety and depression measures. After treatment, analyses of covariance with depression and anxiety scores as covariates revealed a differential benefit of citalopram for men. Men receiving citalopram reduced average drinks per day by 44%, whereas women exhibited a 27% decrease (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Men may benefit more than women from citalopram in the treatment of alcohol dependence. These findings highlight the importance of examining sex as a significant variable in evaluating response to pharmacotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".