A comparison of depressed patients in randomized versus nonrandomized trials of antidepressant medication and psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians and researchers have questioned whether participants in randomized control trials (RCTs) are representative of patients in the broader clinical population. METHOD: We compared the demographic, clinical, and personality characteristics of patients (N=256) with major depressive disorder (MDD) receiving antidepressant medication or interpersonal therapy as part of an RCT investigation (n=105) versus in a clinic (n=151). The RCT and clinic protocols were identical with the exception of recruitment procedures (advertisement versus physician referral) and assignment to treatment (randomized versus nonrandomized). RESULTS: No significant differences emerged between the RCT participants and clinic patients for sex, age, marital status, and education. Overall, clinic patients were no more severely depressed compared to RCT participants; there was, however, a significant interaction effect. Response rates were significantly higher for RCT participants versus clinic patients. Those participating in the RCT scored significantly higher on a personality scale assessing preference for novel experiences compared to those in the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in clinical and personality variables between those receiving treatment for MDD as part of an RCT versus in a clinic exist; however, the clinical significance of these differences remains in question, as these variables were unrelated to treatment outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".