Discontinuation of Lithium Augmentation in Geriatric Patients with Unipolar Depression: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lithium is an augmentation strategy for unipolar depression in geriatric populations. This review outlines the evidence in the literature regarding risk of relapse when lithium is discontinued in geriatric patients. METHOD: Articles were selected based on selection criteria for relevance and design quality (original studies, French or English, patients older than 65 years, patients with an episode of major depressive disorder, meeting DSM-III or greater criteria, and patients who had been successfully treated to remission with lithium augmentation of an antidepressant, then withdrawn from lithium augmentation treatment). RESULTS: Three articles were found. Overall rate of relapse could not be clearly established but a rate of 50% relapse over about 6 months follow-up could be surmised from the study results. CONCLUSIONS: There is a risk of relapse in elderly patients whose lithium augmentation treatment for unipolar depression is discontinued. More studies with a randomized control trial design are required to provide more definitive information on this topic.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".