MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994397790 · doi:10.1097/jcp.0b013e3181dcb594

Analysis by Age and Sex of Efficacy Data From Placebo-Controlled Trials of Desvenlafaxine in Outpatients With Major Depressive Disorder

2010· article· en· W1994397790 on OpenAlexaff
Susan G. Kornstein, Anita H. Clayton, Cláudio N. Soares, Sudharshan K. Padmanabhan, Christine J. Guico‐Pabia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMajor depressive disorderInternal medicineMedicineDepression (economics)Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pooled analysis evaluated the efficacy of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients grouped by age and sex. Nine clinical trials were pooled. Outpatients 18 years or older with MDD received desvenlafaxine 50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/d (men = 709; women = 1096) or placebo (men = 399; women = 709) for 8 weeks. Data were analyzed by sex and by age groups of 40 years and younger, 41 to 54 years, 55 to 64 years, and 65 years and older. The primary outcome was change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) total score at the final evaluation. Secondary measures included response (> or =50% reduction in HAM-D17) and remission (HAM-D17 < or =7). No significant sex-treatment, age-treatment, or sex-age-treatment interactions were observed. Differences in the HAM-D17 change from baseline for desvenlafaxine versus placebo were -1.72 for women (P < 0.001) and -2.11 for men (P < 0.001); these changes were significant among women of the 18-to-40 (P = 0.01), 41-to-54 (P = 0.002), and 65-years-and-older subgroups (P = 0.02), and significant among men for the 18-to-40 (P = 0.03) and 41-to-54 subgroups (P = 0.002). The response rates for desvenlafaxine and placebo were 53% and 42% (P < 0.001), respectively, among women, and 53% and 41% (P < 0.001), respectively, among men; the remission rates were 31% and 21% (P < 0.001) and 34% and 26% (P = 0.007), respectively. The response rates were similar across age subgroups, with significant differences from placebo observed in the 18-to-40 (P < or = 0.05), 41-to-54 (P < or = 0.005), and 65-and-older subgroups (P = 0.02). The remission rates were significant versus placebo in the 41-to-54 (P = 0.006), 55-to-64 (P = 0.01), and 65-and-older (P = 0.02) subgroups among women but not in any age subgroup among men. Desvenlafaxine generally improved depressive symptoms across age and sex subgroups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.017
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychopharmacologySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207