MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996645081 · doi:10.4088/jcp.14m09003

Impaired Insight Into Delusions Predicts Treatment Outcome During a Randomized Controlled Trial for Psychotic Depression (STOP-PD Study)

2015· article· en· W1996645081 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Gerretsen, Alastair J. Flint, Ellen M. Whyte, Anthony J. Rothschild, Barnett S. Meyers, Benoit H. Mulsant

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsDelusionPsychologyPsychiatryPsychotic depressionDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPsychosisRating scaleSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Randomized controlled trialMajor depressive disorderPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleCognitionScale for the Assessment of Negative SymptomsSeverity of illnessHamilton Rating Scale for DepressionBrief Psychiatric Rating ScaleMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Insight into delusional beliefs varies in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with psychotic features ("psychotic depression"). The relationship between impaired insight and illness severity and its impact on treatment outcomes has not been studied in psychotic depression. As such, the aim of this analysis was to explore the relationship among impaired insight, patient characteristics (ie, illness severity, cognition, suicidality, and social functioning), and treatment outcome (ie, remission) during acute treatment of psychotic depression. METHOD: This secondary analysis is based on the data from the Study of Pharmacotherapy for Psychotic Depression (STOP-PD) in which 259 participants meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD with psychotic features enrolled between December 2002 and June 2007 (including 142 aged ≥ 60 years) in a 4-center, 12- week, double-blind, randomized controlled trial funded by the US National Institutes of Health. Insight into delusions was assessed using the Delusion Assessment Scale (DAS). The primary outcomes were the predictive utility of insight into illness (ie, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS] insight item) and insight into delusions (conviction factor derived from the DAS) on final treatment outcome at 12 weeks of treatment (ie, full remission, partial remission, and nonremission). RESULTS: At baseline, impaired insight into delusions was positively associated with illness severity (HDRS-16 which excluded the insight item, r = 0.15, P = .016) and negatively correlated with measures of cognition (P < .05). Improvement in insight was not associated with changes in cognition, suicidality, or social functioning after adjusting for covariates. Independent of the severity of depression or psychosis, impaired insight into delusions at baseline (χ² = 11.65, P = .020) and after 3 (χ² = 9.62, P = .047), 6 (χ² = 6.97, P = .031), and 8 (χ² = 9.08, P = .011) weeks of treatment predicted remission at the end of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired insight into delusions appears to be an independent predictor of remission in MDD with psychotic features during acute treatment, suggesting that more attention should be paid to this symptom. Longitudinal studies are required to determine the impact of impaired insight into delusions on long-term outcomes, including relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00056472.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207