High worry severity is associated with poorer acute and maintenance efficacy of antidepressants in late-life depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Co-morbid anxiety symptoms are common in late-life depression (LLD) and predict poorer treatment outcomes. No research has delineated the impact of different dimensions of anxiety (such as worry/anxious apprehension and panic/anxious arousal) on treatment response in LLD. We explored the impact of the dimensions of worry and panic on acute and maintenance treatment outcomes in LLD. METHODS: We measured anxiety symptoms in 170 LLD subjects receiving protocolized treatment. Exploratory principal component analysis was used to delineate dimensions of anxiety symptoms. We defined sub-groups based on factor scores. We used survival analysis to test the association of pretreatment anxiety dimensions with time to response and time to recurrence of LLD. RESULTS: The principal component analysis found two factors: "worry" and "panic." Three sub-groups were defined: low panic-low worry, low panic-high worry, and high panic-high worry. The low panic-high worry and high panic-high worry sub-groups had longer time to response than the low panic-low worry sub-group. Time to recurrence was longer in low panic-low worry subjects randomized to drug. Among subjects with high worry, there was no difference between those with low versus high panic regarding both time to response and time to recurrence of LLD. CONCLUSION: High levels of worry were associated with longer time to response and earlier recurrence with pharmacotherapy for LLD. There was no additional effect of panic symptoms on treatment outcomes when accounting for the effects of excessive worry. These results suggest that worry symptoms should be a focus of strategies to improve acute and maintenance treatment response in LLD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".