MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969922688 · doi:10.1159/000357500

The Integrative Management of Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Comprehensive Review and Perspectives

2014· review· en· W1969922688 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatment-resistant depressionAntidepressantMedicineRandomized controlled trialMajor depressive disorderBipolar disorderLithium (medication)Depression (economics)Meta-analysisPsychiatryTricyclic antidepressantPsychologyPsychotherapistInternal medicineCognitionAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a prevalent and disabling illness. Notwithstanding numerous advances in the pharmacological treatment of depression, approximately 70% of patients do not remit after first-line antidepressant treatment. METHODS: The MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases were searched from inception to October 1, 2013, for randomized controlled trials (RCT), relevant open-label trials, meta-analyses and ongoing trials of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic approaches to treatment-resistant depression (TRD). RESULTS: Switching to a different antidepressant is a useful option following nonresponse to a first-line agent. Although widely used in clinical practice, there is limited evidence to support antidepressant combination for TRD. Notwithstanding evidence for lithium or T3 augmentation to be successful in TRD, most studies were carried out when participants were treated with tricyclic antidepressants (TCA). Of the available strategies to augment the response to new-generation antidepressants, the use of some atypical antipsychotics is best supported by evidence. Several novel therapeutic options are currently discussed. Evidence suggests that cognitive therapy (CT) is an effective strategy for TRD. CONCLUSIONS: The success of switching to a different antidepressant following a first-line agent is supported by evidence, but there is limited evidence for effective combination strategies. Lithium and T3 augmentation of TCA have the strongest evidence base for successful treatment of TRD. The use of augmentation of newer-generation antidepressants with atypical antipsychotics is supported by a growing evidence base. Current evidence supports CT as an effective strategy for TRD. There is a need for additional large-scale RCT of TRD. The development of new antidepressants targeting novel pathways opens a promising perspective for the management of TRD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.387
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