Sexual Function during Bupropion or Paroxetine Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate sexual function (SF) separately in men and women with major depressive disorder (MDD) before and during treatment with bupropion sustained release (SR) or paroxetine. The secondary objectives involved a comparative evaluation of the Sex Effects Scale (Sex FX) and the Investigator-Rated Sexual Desire and Functioning Scale (IRSD-F), as well as a comparison of antidepressant outcomes and an examination of the relation between level of depression and SF over time. METHOD: There were 141 patients (68 women and 73 men) who met DSM-IV criteria for a current major depressive episode. They were randomly assigned to receive bupropion SR (150 to 300 mg daily) or paroxetine (20 to 40 mg daily) under double-blind trial conditions. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17), Sex FX, and IRSD-F. RESULTS: Prior to treatment, women reported significantly lower SF on both the Sex FX and IRSD-F scales, compared with men. During treatment, there were no significant drug differences on measures of SF over time for women; however, men who were treated with paroxetine reported a worsening of SF, whereas bupropion SR did not significantly alter SF. Both bupropion SR and paroxetine produced clinically and statistically significant reductions in HDRS17 scores as well as comparable rates of response and remission. There was a statistically significant correlation between the 2 measures of SF at all visits. There was also a significant inverse relation between depression and SF in women, but not in men, irrespective of drug. CONCLUSION: According to the Sex FX scale, a significant difference in antidepressant-related sexual dysfunction was detected in men, but not women, during treatment with bupropion SR or paroxetine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".