Olanzapine plus fluoxetine reduce depressive symptoms faster than either drug alone in people with treatment resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shelton RC, Williamson DJ, Corya SA, et al . Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for treatment-resistant depression: a controlled study of SSRI and nortriptyline resistance. J Clin Psychiatry 2005;66:1289–97.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Does a combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine lead to a greater reduction in symptoms in people with treatment resistant depression compared with either drug alone? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: Unclear. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: Double blind. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: Eight weeks. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: Seventy one sites in the United States and Canada; study started in August 1999. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 500 people (age 18–65 years) with treatment resistant unipolar, non-psychotic, major depression disorder (DSM-IV; Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ⩾20). Participants had not responded to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in the past, and also failed to respond to nortriptyline (<30% reduction in … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BJournal%2Bof%2Bclinical%2Bpsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BClin%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DShelton%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BC.%26rft.volume%253D66%26rft.issue%253D10%26rft.spage%253D1289%26rft.epage%253D1297%26rft.atitle%253DOlanzapine%252Ffluoxetine%2Bcombination%2Bfor%2Btreatment-resistant%2Bdepression%253A%2Ba%2Bcontrolled%2Bstudy%2Bof%2BSSRI%2Band%2Bnortriptyline%2Bresistance.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.4088%252FJCP.v66n1012%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16259543%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4088/JCP.v66n1012&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16259543&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F9%2F2%2F42.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000232911500012&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".