Childhood maltreatment and differential treatment response and recurrence in adult major depressive disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A substantial number of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to treatment, and recurrence rates remain high. The purpose of this study was to examine a history of severe childhood abuse as a moderator of response following a 16-week acute treatment trial, and of recurrence over a 12-month follow-up. METHOD: Participants included 203 adult outpatients with MDD (129 women; age 18-60). The design was a 16-week single-center randomized, open label trial of interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or antidepressant medication, with a 12-month naturalistic follow-up, conducted at a university psychiatry center in Canada. The main outcome measure was Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores at treatment end point. Childhood maltreatment was assessed at the completion of treatment using an interview-based contextual measure of childhood physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. Multiple imputation was adopted to estimate missing values. RESULTS: Patients with severe maltreatment were significantly less likely to respond to interpersonal psychotherapy than to cognitive-behavioral therapy or medication (OR = 3.61), whereas no differences among treatments were found in those with no history of maltreatment (ORs < 1.50). Furthermore, maltreatment significantly predicted a shorter time to recurrence over follow-up across treatment conditions (OR = 3.04). These findings were replicated in the sample with complete case data. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of childhood abuse may benefit more from antidepressant medication or cognitive-behavioral therapy than from interpersonal psychotherapy. However, these patients remain vulnerable to recurrence regardless of treatment modality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".