Residual cognitive impairments in remitted depressed patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depressive disorders are associated with various cognitive impairments. Studies on whether or not these impairments persist into the euthymic phase have shown conflicting results, due to differences in test versions and in study samples. In this paper, we aimed to compare the cognitive performance of remitted depressed patients with that of age- and gender-matched healthy volunteers across a wide range of cognitive domains. In two studies, we found few differences on neutral as well as emotional information processing tests. The findings indicate that remitted depressed patients who use antidepressant medication still show an increased recognition of facial expression of fear compared to healthy controls. Patients also performed worse on a test of recognition of abstract visual information from long-term memory. No other residual cognitive impairments were found. These results indicate that most of the cognitive impairments associated with depression resolve with recovery through medication, even when recovery is incomplete. Considering the finding that remitted depressed patients have higher levels of cognitive reactivity, future studies may investigate the possibility that these cognitive impairments have not resolved but have become latent, and may therefore easily be triggered by small changes in mood state.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".