Mecamylamine for Treatment of People With Dual Diagnoses of Depression and Alcohol Dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Currently there is no consensus on the best treatment for individuals with dual diagnoses of alcohol dependence and depression. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of mecamylamine augmentation of an antidepressant in reducing drinking, smoking, and depressive symptoms. Methods: This was a double-blind, randomized 12-week treatment trial comparing mecamylamine to placebo. Twenty-one participants with diagnosed alcohol dependence and comorbid depression were included in this study. Eleven participants were assigned to mecamylamine and ten were assigned to placebo. The main outcome variables included drinking measures and depressive symptoms. Analyses included all participants. Results: Mecamylamine augmentation was effective in reducing drinking outcomes particularly in nonsmokers. Symptoms of depression decreased for all participants and there was a trend indicating that this was more pronounced again for nonsmokers receiving mecamylamine. The rates of smoking decreased for all smokers. There were no significant differences in the rates of side effect reporting between those receiving mecamylamine and those receiving placebo or smokers versus nonsmokers. Conclusions: Mecamylamine was more effective than placebo in reducing drinking in nonsmokers. The data regarding depressive symptoms and smoking need further study. This study is registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov under number NCT00563797.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".