Major Depressive Disorder in Adolescence: A Brief Review of the Recent Treatment Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Treating adolescents with depression remains a major clinical and public health challenge. Because of the serious morbidity and mortality associated with adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD), there is a need to review the published literature on treatment efficacy to establish effective treatment choices for these adolescents. METHOD: We reviewed the recent literature on the treatment of MDD in adolescents using the Medline and PsycINFO computerized databases. RESULTS: Results of open studies of MDD treatment in adolescents suggested therapeutic efficacy; however, later, better-controlled studies are more difficult to interpret, owing to the high rate of improvement with placebo. Currently, there is limited evidence of robust, effective therapeutic interventions in children and in adolescent depressive disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations, current findings from studies investigating selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), cognitive-behavioural therapy, and interpersonal therapy generally support these treatments as safe and effective for adolescent MDD. Still, further investigations into these treatments for adolescent depression are warranted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".