Ropinirole in Treatment-Resistant Depression: A 16-Week Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive ropinirole in outpatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHOD: The study sample consisted of patients with a major depressive episode (diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria) and TRD. Ropinirole 0.25 to 1.5 mg daily was added to tricyclic antidepressants or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. We conducted assessments at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. We defined response as a 50% or greater reduction of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score plus a score of 1 ("very much improved") or 2 ("much improved") on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale at endpoint. Tolerability was monitored with the Dosage Record Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale. RESULTS: Seven patients had major depressive disorder, and 3 had bipolar II disorder. The mean maximum dose of ropinirole was 1.33 mg daily. Mean (SD) scores on the MADRS decreased from 29.6 (7.6) at baseline to 16.9 (12.1) at endpoint (P < 0.02). At endpoint, 4 of 10 (40%) patients were responders. Two patients discontinued ropinirole because of dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data suggest that, in selected cases of TRD, ropinirole augmentation of antidepressants is effective and relatively well tolerated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".