Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an updated review of the use of antidepressant drugs in dermatology. Some of the psychiatric disorders that are usually comorbid with dermatological disorders and respond to antidepressants include major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, body dysmorphic disorder, social phobia and post-traumatic stress disorder usually secondary to trauma and abuse during early life. Cutaneous symptoms may be the feature of a primary psychiatric disorder, e.g. cutaneous body image problems, dermatitis artefacta, neurotic excoriations and trichotillomania, or psychiatric syndromes may be comorbid with a primary dermatological disorder such as the association of major depressive disorder or social phobia with psoriasis and obsessive compulsive disorder with acne excoriee. Some of the salient pharmacological properties of the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants are reviewed. The review indicates that the SSRI antidepressants are potentially beneficial in the management of all the major psychiatric syndromes that are encountered in dermatological disorders. The generally more favourable side-effect profile of the SSRIs, such as lower cardiotoxicity in contrast to the TCAs, has made them the first-line agents for the treatment of depression. Furthermore, some of the pharmacological properties of the antidepressant agents that are not related to their antidepressant activity, such as the histamine H1 blocking effect of TCAs, such as doxepin, amitriptyline and trimipramine, are of benefit in dermatological conditions such as urticaria and pruritus. This paper reviews the general guidelines for use of antidepressants and salient drug-drug interactions resulting mainly from the inhibition of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 and 3A3/4 isoenzymes by some of the SSRI antidepressants. Before prescribing an antidepressant agent, the specific guidelines, side-effect profile, drug-drug interactions and most current indications should always be obtained.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".