MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073120020 · doi:10.1176/pn.40.15.00400019a

Data Behind Antidepressant Advisory Don't Give Clear-Cut Answers

2005· article· en· W2073120020 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jim Rosack

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric News · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvisory committeeAntidepressantPsychologyManagementPsychiatryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessData Behind Antidepressant Advisory Don't Give Clear-Cut AnswersJim RosackJim RosackPublished Online:5 Aug 2005https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.40.15.00400019aThe FDA's June 30 public health advisory concerning antidepressants was prompted, the advisory said, by "several recent scientific publications" that suggested "the possibility of an increased risk for suicidal behavior in adults who are being treated with antidepressant medications."FDA spokesperson Christine Parker told Psychiatric News that the advisory was prompted by "two papers of particular interest." Both appeared in the February 19 BMJ (Psychiatric News, April 1).The first study was led by Dean Fergusson, M.D., a scientist researcher at the Ottawa Health Research Institute's Clinical Epidemiology Program in Ottawa, Canada. Fergusson and his colleagues analyzed 702 clinical trials involving more than 87,000 adult patients with depression and other disorders.Fergusson found that patients taking SSRIs were twice as likely to attempt suicide as patients in the trial taking placebo (odds ratio 2.28). However, the analysis found no increase in risk when only the number of completed suicides of patients taking SSRIs was compared with that of subjects taking placebo.No significant differences were noted in the risk of suicide attempt in patients taking tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) compared with those taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).The second study cited by Parker reviewed data from more than 40,000 adult patients in 477 clinical trials that drug companies had submitted to the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). In this analysis, David Gunnell, M.D., a professor of epidemiology at the University of Bristol, England, and colleagues found "weak evidence of an increased risk of self-harm (odds ratio 1.57)." However, they found" no evidence that SSRIs increased the risk of suicide."A third study published in the same issue of BMJ, but not cited by Parker, was led by Carlos Martinez, M.D., an epidemiologist in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) Division of the MHRA. He was joined by Gunnell and others. They analyzed the course of all patients in the GPRD who had a new diagnosis of depression and for whom an antidepressant was prescribed between 1995 and 2001.In more than 146,000 patients aged 10 to 90, Martinez and his team found that the risk of self-harm and suicide was not significantly different between SSRIs and TCAs. Children and adolescents under age 18 who were prescribed antidepressants were at increased risk for self-harm (odds ratio 1.59) compared with peers who had not been prescribed one of these medications. However, no increased risk was seen in any older cohort.Darrel Regier, M.D., M.P.H., director of research at APA and executive director of the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education, noted when the studies were published that the findings were difficult to interpret. Fergusson's finding of a twofold risk of nonfatal self-harm in self-reported adverse events but no increase in completed suicides" remains difficult to interpret and deserves additional study," Regier told Psychiatric News in March.Gunnell's findings of "weak evidence of increased risk of self-harm and inconclusive evidence of increased risk of suicidal thoughts," Regier added, "illustrate the contradictory nature of findings coming from these studies."Abstracts of the three BMJ studies are posted at<http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/content/vol330/issue7488/>.▪ ISSUES NewArchived

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric NewsSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207