Absence of discontinuation symptoms with agomelatine and occurrence of discontinuation symptoms with paroxetine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled discontinuation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of an abrupt interruption of agomelatine, a new melatonergic/serotonergic antidepressant, were explored in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Paroxetine was used as active control. After 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with agomelatine 25 mg/day or paroxetine 20 mg/day, sustained remitted depressed patients were randomized for 2 weeks, under double-blind conditions, to placebo or to their initial antidepressant treatment. Discontinuation symptoms were assessed at the end of the first and second week of discontinuation with the Discontinuation Emergent Signs and Symptoms (DESS) checklist. One hundred and ninety-two sustained remitted patients were randomized to the 2-week discontinuation period. Patients who discontinued agomelatine did not experience more discontinuation symptoms than those who continued on agomelatine. Patients who discontinued paroxetine for placebo experienced significantly more DESS discontinuation symptoms, during the first week, compared to those who continued with paroxetine (respective mean number of emergent symptoms: 7.3+/-7.1 and 3.5+/-4.1, P<0.001). No significant difference was shown between the continuing and interrupting groups in the second week of discontinuation. By contrast to paroxetine, abrupt cessation of agomelatine is not associated with discontinuation symptoms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".