MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031031899 · doi:10.4088/pcc.v07n0203

Paroxetine Controlled Release for Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder

2005· article· en· W2031031899 on OpenAlexaffabout
Teri Pearlstein, Kevin M. Bellew, Jean Endicott, Meir Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS Disorders · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Joseph's Hospital
FundersH. Lundbeck A/SSanofiGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPremenstrual dysphoric disorderParoxetinePsychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistMedicineInternal medicineAntidepressantAnxietyMenstrual cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of paroxetine controlled release (CR) (12.5 mg/day or 25 mg/day) versus placebo in premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).Method: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted over 3 menstrual cycles in women aged 18-45 years with confirmed DSM-IV PMDD in 47 outpatient centers across the United States and Canada from November 1999 to January 2002. The primary efficacy measure was the visual analog scale (VAS)-Mood, which is the mean of 4 core symptoms: irritability, tension, depressed mood, and affective lability.Results: A statistically significant difference was observed in favor of paroxetine CR 25 mg versus placebo on the VAS-Mood (adjusted mean difference = -12.58 mm, 95% CI = -18.40 to -6.76; p < .001) and for paroxetine CR 12.5 mg versus placebo (adjusted mean difference = -7.51 mm, 95% CI = -13.40 to -1.62; p = .013). Paroxetine CR was generally well tolerated.Conclusion: Paroxetine CR doses of 12.5 mg/day and 25 mg/day are effective in treating PMDD and are well tolerated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS DisordersSame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207