Loudness dependence of the auditory evoked potential and response to antidepressants in Chinese patients with major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the loudness dependence of the auditory evoked potential (LDAEP) in predicting response to treatment for major depression. METHODS: One hundred patients of Chinese ethnicity with major depression were divided into 2 groups, having strong or weak pretreatment LDAEP; the cutoff was the median of the LDAEP slope (for amplitude as a function of intensity). There were no between-group differences before treatment in terms of score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), age or sex distribution. The LDAEP for 4 intensity levels (60, 70, 80 and 90 dB) was recorded before treatment. Each patient then received fluoxetine 20 mg per day for 4 weeks. The response to treatment was evaluated by means of the HDRS. RESULTS: At week 4, the HDRS score had declined by 44.3; for the group with strong LDAEP and by 34.4% for the group with weak LDAEP (t for mean difference = 2.584, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Strong pretreatment LDAEP predicted a favourable response to treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in patients with major depression.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".