Sertraline in generalized anxiety disorder: efficacy in treating the psychic and somatic anxiety factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to study the efficacy of sertraline on symptoms of psychic and somatic anxiety in patients suffering from moderate-to-severe generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHOD: Out-patients with DSM-IV GAD were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with placebo. The psychic and somatic anxiety factors of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and the Quality of Life, Enjoyment, and Satisfaction Questionnaire were analyzed. RESULTS: Treatment with sertraline resulted in significantly greater last observation carried forward (LOCF)-endpoint improvement than placebo on both the HAM-A psychic and somatic anxiety factors. At LOCF-endpoint, all items on the HAM-A psychic factor were more improved on sertraline than placebo, as were three of seven items on the somatic factor. Reduction of secondary depressive symptoms was more correlated with endpoint improvement in quality of life than either psychic- or somatic anxiety. CONCLUSION: Sertraline treatment demonstrated efficacy for both the psychic and somatic anxiety symptoms of GAD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".