Placebo-Controlled Study of Gabapentin Treatment of Panic Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in relieving the symptoms of panic disorder. One hundred three patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with either gabapentin (dosed flexibly between 600 and 3,600 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks. No overall drug/placebo difference was observed in scores on the Panic and Agoraphobia Scale (PAS) (p = 0.606). A post hoc analysis was used to evaluate the more severely ill patients as defined by the primary outcome measure (PAS score > or = 20). In this population, the gabapentin-treated patients showed significant improvement in the PAS change score (p = 0.04). In patients with a PAS score of 20 or greater, women showed a greater response than men regardless of treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known side effect profile of gabapentin and included somnolence, headache, and dizziness. One patient experienced a serious adverse event during the study. No deaths were reported. The results of this study suggest that gabapentin may have anxiolytic effects in more severely ill patients with panic disorder.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".