A double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of sertraline and clomipramine in outpatients with severe major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the efficacy and safety of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline with that of the tricyclic antidepressant clomipramine in patients with severe depression, as defined by a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) of at least 25. The study included 166 outpatients, randomized to double-blind treatment with sertraline (50-200 mg) or clomipramine (50-150 mg) for 8 weeks. The efficacy of both treatments was similar, 74% of patients in the sertraline group and 71% of clomipramine patients being classified as responders at the end-point, as defined by a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 or 2. Mean HAM-D scores fell from 29.8 at baseline to 12.3 at endpoint in the sertraline group, and from 29.6-12.7 in the clomipramine group. There were more withdrawals due to adverse events in the clomipramine group than in the sertraline group (17% versus 12%). Dry mouth, tremor, dizziness and constipation were all substantially more common in the clomipramine group, whereas diarrhoea/loose stools was more common in the sertraline group. Overall, sertraline was as effective as clomipramine in this group of severely depressed outpatients, and showed better tolerability.
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) | 0.000 | 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".