Lamotrigine adjunctive treatment in resistant unipolar depression: an open, descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adjunctive treatment of lamotrigine compared to other antidepressants in the treatment of partially responsive, poorly functioning patients with unipolar depression was assessed. Fourteen consenting patients with confirmed DSM-IV-R diagnosis of unipolar depression were identified as treatment resistant. All patients failed at least two 8-week treatment trials with antidepressants. All were treated with lamotrigine as an adjunct to other antidepressants for at least 6 months. The primary effectiveness measure was the Clinical Global Impression Severity subscale (CGI-S). Other scales included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). Monitoring for skin rashes, headache, dizziness, somnolence, and gastrointestinal disturbances was carried out to assess for adverse events. Baseline measures prior to adding lamotrigine were compared to those at 8 weeks and 6 months with adjunctive treatment. Twelve patients of the total (n=14) completed the trial, and two discontinued treatment. There was significant, rapid, and robust resolution in symptoms in all effectiveness measures, including the core symptoms of depression, as shown by the changes from baseline in CGI-S, and MADRS at 8 weeks. Social and occupational functioning was significantly improved at 6 months. Eight patients returned to gainful employment or started schooling. Patients tolerated the adjunctive lamotrigine treatment well. Lamotrigine may have antidepressant properties in patients with unipolar depression and may have an earlier onset of action when given in combination with antidepressants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".