Reboxetine: a preliminary report on its use through the Special Access Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness and tolerability of reboxetine under Special Access Program conditions in Canada in a group of patients with refractory depressive disorders. DESIGN: Retrospective open-label study. SETTING: Six clinical academic settings in Canada, primarily tertiary institutional settings. PATIENTS: Twenty-six female and 19 male outpatients with depressive disorders, primarily unipolar depression. Most of the patients were treatment resistant. INTERVENTION: Reboxetine through the Special Access Program. OUTCOME MEASURE: Severity of depression before treatment with reboxetine was retrospectively assessed with the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Global Severity Scale; change with treatment was evaluated with the CGI Global Improvement Scale. RESULTS: Before reboxetine treatment, 20 (44%) patients scored in the moderate CGI severity category, 11 (24%) in the marked category and 12 (27%) in the severe category. The dose range for reboxetine was 2-16 mg, with 40 (89%) patients in the 4-10 mg range. With reboxetine treatment, 25 (56%) patients were considered "very much improved" or "much improved"; 8 (18%) patients were "minimally improved"; 7 (16%) received ratings that reflected "no change" or minimal worsening, and 5 (11%) were rated as "much worse" or "very much worse." CONCLUSIONS: Reboxetine was effective at a clinically meaningful level in decreasing severity of depression in 56% of patients. Given the high rate of prior resistance to other antidepressant therapies, there is a definite role for this agent in the treatment of depressive disorders.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".