Use of Buspirone in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Coexisting Depressive Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents the results of a retrospective analysis of pooled efficacy data from eight studies in which buspirone was compared to placebo in 520 patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). In addition to evaluating overall efficacy in the composite patient data base, four criteria were used to identify subsets of patients with GAD who had coexisting depressive symptoms of at least moderate intensity: (1) a score of > or = 2 on the Hamilton Anxiety (HAM-A) Rating Scale item 6 (depressed mood), (2) a score of > or = 2 on the Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) Rating Scale item 1 (depressed mood), (3) a HAM-D total score of > or = 18, or (4) a HAM-D Retardation Factor value (items 1, 7, 8, and 14) greater than the median for the group. Overall, patients treated with buspirone demonstrated significant (p < or = 0.001) improvement over baseline in total HAM-A scores compared to patients who received placebo. Buspirone also produced significant (p < or = 0.001) global improvement compared to placebo as assessed by the attending physician. Of the GAD patients stratified according to the four criteria for coexisting depressive symptoms, a substantial percentage (44-64%) of the total patient sample exhibited significant depressive symptoms as part of their anxiety disorder. Patients with GAD and coexisting depressive symptoms of at least moderate intensity exhibited significantly greater improvement with buspirone compared to placebo treatment regardless of the stratification criterion used. They also responded at least as well or better to buspirone therapy as did those with GAD who had less intense depressive symptoms.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".