Tianeptine and Amitriptyline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
129 chronic alcoholic patients, withdrawn from alcohol and presenting major depression or dysthymic disorder, were treated for 4-8 weeks under double-blind conditions either with a new antidepressant, tianeptine (37.5 mg per day), or with amitriptyline (75 mg per day). Both groups presented steady improvement of the symptoms of depression during treatment, as scored on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist self-evaluation; for the latter scale, the improvement was significantly greater in the tianeptine group. In addition to the improvement of mood, tianeptine also produced significant reduction of the somatic complaints of the depressed patients. Furthermore, tianeptine possesses anxiolytic activity, as shown by the change of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale global score, similar to that produced by amitriptyline. The anxiolytic activity of tianeptine was not accompanied by any impairment of vigilance, unlike that of amitriptyline. Tianeptine produced rare, mild anticholinergic effects. The results obtained show that tianeptine is an effective anxiolytic antidepressant, with better safety than amitriptyline, suitable for use in the treatment of mood disorders following alcohol withdrawal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".