Antidepressant Side Effects in Depression Patients Treated in a Naturalistic Setting: A Study of Bupropion, Moclobemide, Paroxetine, Sertraline, and Venlafaxine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is no commonly accepted standard for comparing antidepressant-induced side effects. This study evaluates a clinician-administered scale, the Toronto Side Effect Scale (TSES), in a natural practice clinic. METHOD: We used the TSES to assess side effects in 193 depression patients who completed 8 weeks of treatment with either bupropion, moclobemide, paroxetine, sertraline, or venlafaxine. RESULTS: Rates of remission (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRSD] < 7) did not differ across drugs after 8 weeks of treatment. Paired drug comparisons yielded significant differences in 16 of the 32 side effects. We present differences between pairs of the 5 antidepressants in Central Nervous System (CNS), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual side effects. A measure of side-effect intensity distinguished paroxetine from the other antidepressants on a measure of sexual dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the clinical utility of the TSES as a simple, clinician-administered antidepressant side-effect scale.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".