Fluvoxamine in obsessive‐compulsive disorder: similar efficacy but superior tolerability in comparison with clomipramine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some meta-analyses have suggested that the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are less effective than clomipramine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The aim of this double-blind, randomised, multicentre study was to directly compare the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine and clomipramine in patients with OCD. A total of 227 patients were randomised to flexible doses of fluvoxamine or clomipramine (both 150-300 mg/day) for 10 weeks. Fluvoxamine and clomipramine were both clinically effective and there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups, at any visit, on the National Institute of Mental Health Obsessive-Compulsive global rating scale, the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive scale (total score and obsession and compulsion subscores), the Clinical Global Impression severity of illness and global improvement subscales, the Clinical Anxiety Scale and the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. However, there were differences in safety between the two treatments. Compared with fluvoxamine-treated patients, those treated with clomipramine had more anticholinergic side effects (dry mouth, constipation and tremor) and premature withdrawals due to adverse events (18 versus 9). The results from this controlled study indicate that fluvoxamine is as effective as clomipramine in the treatment of OCD but has a better tolerability profile. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".