Randomized trial of paroxetine in end-stage COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the underlying pathology is initially confined to the lungs, the associated emotional responses to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) contribute greatly to the resulting morbidity. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of an antidepressant drug on disease-specific quality of life in patients with end-stage COPD who present significant depressive symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a 12-week, randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of Paroxetine in which quality of life measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), an evaluative COPD-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, was the primary outcome. RESULTS: 23 patients were randomized and 15 completed the trial (8 on Paroxetine; 7 on placebo). In the per-protocol analysis, we observed statistically and clinically significant improvements favoring the active treatment in 2 of the 4 domains of the CRQ: emotional function (adjusted mean difference: 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0 - 2.2) and mastery (difference: 1.1; CI: 0.4 - 1.8). Dyspnea and fatigue improved, but to an extent that did not reach statistical significance. In the intention-to-treat analysis, none of the differences in CRQ scores was significant. Paroxetine was not associated to any worsening of respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this small randomized trial indicated that patients with end-stage COPD may benefit from antidepressant drug therapy when significant depressive symptoms are present. This study underlined the difficulties in conducting experimental studies in frail and elderly patients with COPD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".