Underrecognition of Clinically Significant Side Effects in Depressed Outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The presence of medication side effects is one of the most frequent reasons depressed patients discontinue medication, and premature discontinuation of medication is associated with poorer outcome in the treatment of depression. Despite the clinical importance of detecting side effects, few studies have examined the adequacy of their detection and documentation by clinicians. We are not aware of any studies comparing psychiatrists' clinical assessments to a standardized side effects checklist in depressed patients receiving ongoing treatment in clinical practice. The goal of the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project was to test the hypothesis that fewer side effects would be recorded by psychiatrists in their patients' charts compared to the number reported by patients on a side effects checklist. METHOD: Three hundred depressed outpatients (diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria) in ongoing treatment completed a self-administered version of the Toronto Side Effects Scale (TSES). The patients rated the frequency of each of the 31 side effects and the degree of trouble caused by them. A research assistant reviewed patients' charts to extract side effects information recorded by the treating psychiatrist. The study was conducted from June 2008 to July 2008. RESULTS: The mean number of side effects reported by the patients on the TSES was 20 times higher than the number recorded by the psychiatrists (P < .01). When the self-reported side effects were limited to frequently occurring or very bothersome side effects, the rate was still 2 to 3 times higher (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatrists may not be aware of most side effects experienced by psychiatric outpatients receiving ongoing pharmacologic treatment for depression.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".