Antiglucocorticoid treatments for mood disorders
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antiglucocorticoids may have antidepressant effects and have been reported to be efficacious in the treatment of severe psychiatric disorders. The efficacy and safety of antiglucocorticoid treatments for mood disorders is the subject of this systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of antiglucocorticoid agents in the treatment of mood episodes (manic, mixed affective or depressive) with placebo or alternative drug treatment in mood disorders. SEARCH STRATEGY: CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References were searched on 11-9-2007. Additional searches of electronic databases were conducted in December 2006. Conference proceedings were searched. Experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing antiglucocorticoid drugs in the treatment of mood episodes with placebo or alternative drug treatment in mood disorders were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted and the methodological quality of each study was assessed independently by two review authors. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager software. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous data, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met criteria for inclusion. A number of drugs were examined, including mifepristone [RU-486], ketoconazole, metyrapone and DHEA. Three trials were in patients with psychotic major depression (pMDD), five trials in non-psychotic major depression and one trial in bipolar disorder. When examining all trials together across all affective episodes, there was no significant difference in the overall proportion of patients responding to antiglucocorticoid treatment over placebo, although the mean change in HAM-D scores indicated a significant difference in favour of treatment (WMD -4.54, 95%CI -6.78 to -2.29). Of the five trials in non-psychotic depression (unipolar or bipolar), there was a significant difference favouring treatment (HAM-D 50% reduction: RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.56 to 0.91). In pMDD, there was no evidence of an overall antidepressant effect (HAM-D 50% reduction: RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.22) or an effect on overall psychopathology (BPRS 30% reduction: RR 0.96, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.22). In these subtypes, the mean change in HAM-D indicated a significant difference in favour of treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of antiglucocorticoids in the treatment of mood disorders is at the proof-of-concept stage. Considerable methodological differences exist between studies with respect to the compounds used and the patient cohorts studied. Results in some diagnostic subtypes are promising and warrant further investigation to establish the clinical utility of these drugs in the treatment of mood 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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".