Does Antidepressant Treatment Improve Cognition in Older People with Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder and Comorbid Subsyndromal Depression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subsyndromal symptoms of depression (SSD) in patients with schizophrenia are common and clinically important. While treatment of depression in major depressive disorder may partially ameliorate cognitive deficits, the cognitive effects of antidepressant medications in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and SSD are unknown. METHODS: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of SSD and their treatment on cognition in participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder aged ≥40 years. Participants were randomly assigned to a flexible dose treatment with citalopram or placebo augmentation of their current medication for 12 weeks. An ANCOVA compared improvement in the cognitive composite scores, and a linear model determined the moderation of cognition on treatment effects based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Calgary Depression Rating Scale scores between treatment groups. RESULTS: There were no differences between the citalopram and placebo groups in changes in cognition. Baseline cognitive status did not moderate antidepressant treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are other cogent reasons why SSD in schizophrenia warrant direct intervention, treatment does not substantially affect the level of cognitive functioning. Given the effects of cognitive deficits associated with schizophrenia on functional disability, there remains an ongoing need to identify effective means of directly ameliorating them.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".