Psychiatric outcomes 10 years after treatment with antidepressants or anxiolytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antidepressants and anxiolytics have demonstrated short-term efficacy; however, little is known about the long-term effectiveness of these drugs. AIMS: To investigate long-term psychiatric outcomes following antidepressant and/or anxiolytic use during an episode of mental disorder in mid-life. METHOD: Members of the 1946 British birth cohort were assessed for symptoms of depression and anxiety at age 43. Among 157 with mental disorder, those using antidepressants and/or anxiolytics were compared with those not using medications on psychiatric outcomes at age 53. RESULTS: Use of antidepressants or anxiolytics was associated with a lower prevalence of mental disorder at age 53 (odds ratio (OR)=0.3, 95% CI 0.1-1.0) after adjustment for eight variables in a propensity-for-treatment analysis. Only 24% of those being treated with medications at age 43 were still using them at 53. CONCLUSIONS: Use of antidepressants or anxiolytics during an episode of mental disorder may have long-term beneficial effects on mental health. This may be because of a demonstrated willingness to seek help rather than long-term maintenance therapy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".