Psychomotor retardation is a scar of past depressive episodes, revealed by simple cognitive tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cumulative duration of depressive episodes, and their repetition, has a detrimental effect on depression recurrence rates and the chances of antidepressant response, and even increases the risk of dementia, raising the possibility that depressive episodes could be neurotoxic. Psychomotor retardation could constitute a marker of this negative burden of past depressive episodes, with conflicting findings according to the use of clinical versus cognitive assessments. We assessed the role of the Retardation Depressive Scale (filled in by the clinician) and the time required to perform the neurocognitive d2 attention test and the Trail Making Test (performed by patients) in a sample of 2048 depressed outpatients, before and after 6 to 8 weeks of treatment with agomelatine. From this sample, 1140 patients performed the TMT-A and -B, and 508 performed the d2 test, at baseline and after treatment. At baseline, we found that with more past depressive episodes patients had more severe clinical level of psychomotor retardation, and that they needed more time to perform both d2 and TMT. When the analyses were performed again after treatment, and especially when the analyses were restricted to patients with clinical remission, the cognitive tests were the only ones correlated with past depressive episodes. Psychomotor retardation tested at a cognitive level was therefore systematically revealing the burden of past depressive episodes, with an increased weight for patients with less remaining symptoms. If prospectively confirmed, interventions such as cognitive remediation therapy could benefit from a more specific focus on neurocognitive retardation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".