Review: lithium augmentation increases treatment response in refractory depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1999) J Clin Psychopharmacol 19, 427. Bauer M, Döpfmer S. . Lithium augmentation in treatment-resistant depression: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies. . Oct; . : . –34 . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients with refractory depression, is lithium augmentation clinically effective? Studies were identified by searching Medline (1980 to June 1997) and the Cochrane Library and by scanning the references of published reviews and standard textbooks. Studies were selected if they were double blind, placebo controlled trials that involved patients who had not responded to conventional antidepressants; accepted, operationalised diagnostic criteria for depression were used; and outcome measures included acceptable criteria for assessing response. 2 reviewers independently assessed the quality of each study (Quality Assessment Scale by Detsky) and resolved differences by consensus. Data were extracted on study population, antidepressant treatment, lithium dose, treatment duration, response criteria, and treatment response. 9 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 234 patients met the inclusion … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bclinical%2Bpsychopharmacology%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BClin%2BPsychopharmacol%26rft.aulast%253DBauer%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D19%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D427%26rft.epage%253D434%26rft.atitle%253DLithium%2Baugmentation%2Bin%2Btreatment-resistant%2Bdepression%253A%2Bmeta-analysis%2Bof%2Bplacebo-controlled%2Bstudies.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1097%252F00004714-199910000-00006%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10505584%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00004714-199910000-00006&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10505584&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F5%2F3%2F88.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000082698200006&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".