Review of the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in youth depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression in children and adolescents is a cause of substantial morbidity and mortality in this population. It is a common disorder that affects 2% of children and up to 6% of adolescents. Although antidepressants are used frequently for the treatment of this disorder, there has been recent controversy about the efficacy and safety of these medications in this population. This review examined the available evidence from clinical trials of antidepressants in adolescents and children with depression. METHODS: Clinical trial data reviewed were obtained from published reports, including peer review journals and meeting abstracts, as well as unpublished data in the public domain. Clinical trials in this review included large RCTs of antidepressants in youth under the age of 19 with depression. Studies were identified in 2 stages: 1) all RCTs included in the 2004 FDA safety report were reviewed; and 2) to ensure that no additional studies not reported to the FDA were missed, MEDLINE and PSYCH Info were searched from inception until December 2004. A total of 8 published studies and 9 unpublished studies were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: Efficacy and safety results from each study are reviewed in detail. There are significant differences in remission and response rates between different antidepressants but also between placebo groups across studies. Adverse events are common in clinical trials involving children and adolescents with depression. Due to lack of access to full data sets, effect sizes could not be calculated. CONCLUSIONS: With the variability in trial methodology and the variation in the drug/placebo response rates within a single trial, clinicians need to be judicious in their interpretation of research data on pediatric antidepressant trials. Significant methodological issues may also have affected the efficacy and safety results from these clinical trials.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".