MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1718269887 · doi:10.1517/14740338.2015.1046836

Vortioxetine: a review of efficacy, safety and tolerability with a focus on cognitive symptoms in major depressive disorder

2015· review· en· W1718269887 on OpenAlexaff
Mayce Al-Sukhni, Nadia A. Maruschak, Roger S. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVortioxetineAntidepressantTolerabilityMedicineMajor depressive disorderPharmacologyCognitionPsychiatryAdverse effectAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Vortioxetine is a pharmacodynamically novel antidepressant that exerts effects on various neurotransmitters including serotonin, noradrenaline, dopamine, glutamate, histamine and acetylcholine. Its efficacy in the symptomatic management of major depressive disorder (MDD) has been established in several short- and long-term trials. Vortioxetine has also demonstrated independent pro-cognitive effects in adults with MDD. AREAS COVERED: This report provides a concise review of the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of vortioxetine as they pertain to cognition. EXPERT OPINION: The significant impact of cognitive dysfunction in MDD has achieved increased consideration among researchers over the past decade. Vortioxetine is the first antidepressant agent to demonstrate meaningful clinical efficacy in the improvement of cognition in adults with MDD, independent of improvement in affective symptomatology. These results provide the impetus for further study into the potential pro-cognitive effects of vortioxetine in other conditions wherein cognitive dysfunction is prominent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207