Are Child and Adolescent Responses to Placebo Higher in Major Depression than in Anxiety Disorders? A Systematic Review of Placebo-Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a previous report, we hypothesized that responses to placebo were high in child and adolescent depression because of specific psychopathological factors associated with youth major depression. The purpose of this study was to compare the placebo response rates in pharmacological trials for major depressive disorder (MDD), obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and other anxiety disorders (AD-non-OCD). METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We reviewed the literature relevant to the use of psychotropic medication in children and adolescents with internalized disorders, restricting our review to double-blind studies including a placebo arm. Placebo response rates were pooled and compared according to diagnosis (MDD vs. OCD vs. AD-non-OCD), age (adolescent vs. child), and date of publication. From 1972 to 2007, we found 23 trials that evaluated the efficacy of psychotropic medication (mainly non-tricyclic antidepressants) involving youth with MDD, 7 pertaining to youth with OCD, and 10 pertaining to youth with other anxiety disorders (N = 2533 patients in placebo arms). As hypothesized, the placebo response rate was significantly higher in studies on MDD, than in those examining OCD and AD-non-OCD (49.6% [range: 17-90%] vs. 31% [range: 4-41%] vs. 39.6% [range: 9-53], respectively, ANOVA F = 7.1, p = 0.002). Children showed a higher stable placebo response within all three diagnoses than adolescents, though this difference was not significant. Finally, no significant effects were found with respect to the year of publication. CONCLUSION: MDD in children and adolescents appears to be more responsive to placebo than other internalized conditions, which highlights differential psychopathology.
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 | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".