Comparison of venlafaxine extended release versus paroxetine for treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This trial was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine extended release (XR) and paroxetine for treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Sixty patients who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD were randomly assigned to either venlafaxine XR or paroxetine for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale at the baseline, week 1, week 4, and week 8. The side-effects were collected with reported adverse events and laboratory tests throughout the study period. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the HAM-A and CGI-S scores showed a significant decrease over time in both treatment groups without significant group difference or time x group interaction effect. There were no serious adverse events in both groups. This open trial demonstrated that either venlafaxine XR or paroxetine would be effective and tolerable for the treatment of patients with GAD. Double blind, placebo-controlled head-to-head comparison studies are needed to draw a definite conclusion.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it