Psychotherapy, Antidepressants, and Their Combination for Chronic Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for treatment of chronic major depressive disorder (cMDD) are mostly based on clinical experiences and on the literature on treatment-resistant depression (TRD) but not on a systematic review of the literature. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with 17 comparisons between antidepressants (ADs), psychotherapy, or the combination of both interventions. RESULTS: The best evidence is for the combination of psychotherapy and ADs, and especially for the combination of the cognitive behavourial analysis system of psychotherapy and ADs. Evidence is very weak for both ADs alone and psychotherapy alone. Assessment of TRD was mostly absent in the studies. CONCLUSION: The best treatment for cMDD is a combination of psychotherapy and ADs. However, there is a lack of well-performed RCTs in both ADs and psychotherapy and their combination for cMDD. Therefore, the conclusions are preliminary.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".