Acute Antidepressive Efficacy of Lithium Monotherapy, Not Citalopram, Depends on Recurrent Course of Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of the 1970s and 1980s showed lithium monotherapy to be an effective treatment of acute unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) and hence as a potential alternative to monoaminergic antidepressants.The objective was to conduct the first comparison of a lithium monotherapy with a modern antidepressant in the acute treatment of MDD. Results were compared with citalopram's efficacy as shown in a different but methodologically identical study (including same researchers, same time, and same place).Thirty patients with an acute MDD (Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition [DSM IV] I) were treated with lithium monotherapy (study 1) or with citalopram monotherapy (study 2, N = 32) for 4 weeks.Response rates (decrease in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score >50%) were 50% for lithium and 72% for citalopram (P = 0.12). Citalopram-treated subjects showed a greater decrease in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (significant at 2 weeks). In the lithium study, only patients with a recurrent episode (DSM-IV: 296.3) responded (15/22), as opposed to none of 8 patients with a first/single episode (DSM-IV: 296.2) (P = 0.002). Patients with a single episode responded significantly more often to citalopram than to lithium (P = 0.007). Both drugs were well tolerated. Only one patient (citalopram) terminated the study prematurely owing to adverse effects.Our results do not support the use of lithium as an alternative to SSRI in the treatment of acute MDD. The finding of a better response to lithium in patients with a recurrent depression has not been reported before and warrants replication. The comparison is limited by the lack of a randomized double-blind design.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".