Functional effects of agents differentially selective to noradrenergic or serotonergic systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diversity of pharmacological actions of antidepressants suggests that they may bring about their clinical effects by different functional means. METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers were randomized in a cross-over design to receive 2 weeks of a clinical dose of both reboxetine and sertraline. Baseline assessments of personality were made using the Cloninger Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire and the Karolinska Scales of Personality. Daily and weekly ratings of mood (POMS and PANAS) and quality of life (SASS) were undertaken. RESULTS: Reboxetine and sertraline differed in their effects on the SASS as well as on measures of mood. Reboxetine appeared more likely to be energy enhancing; the effects of sertraline were more difficult to quantify. Personality factors, such as harm avoidance predicted the preference of subjects for these effects and the effect of being on a preferred drug had a significant impact on SASS, and ratings of moods as well as on self-assessments of personality. CONCLUSIONS: The differences reported here are consistent with the original thinking that led to the development of the SSRIs. The findings point to the need for further research on possible differential functional effects of psychotropic agents selective to different brain systems. The findings also have implications for clinical practice, in particular for maintenance treatment with antidepressants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".