MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130611514 · doi:10.1586/14737175.2013.846519

Extended-release quetiapine fumarate in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: adjunct therapy

2013· review· en· W2130611514 on OpenAlexaff
Richard H. Weisler, Roger S. McIntyre, Michael Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersJohnson and Johnson
KeywordsQuetiapineTolerabilityQuetiapine FumarateMajor depressive disorderPlaceboAdverse effectMedicineAtypical antipsychoticAntidepressantPsychiatryAdjunctive treatmentInternal medicineSomnolenceAripiprazoleAntipsychoticSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AnxietyMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately half of the patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) respond insufficiently to current antidepressants, resulting in increased risk of relapse and residual symptoms. Strategies available include dose increase, combination with a second agent, switching antidepressants, adjunct treatment, psychotherapy or exercise. Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) adjunct to index antidepressant therapy in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to treatment were assessed in two acute studies as part of a global clinical trial program. Quetiapine XR significantly improved depressive symptoms versus placebo. Significant improvement in quality of life versus placebo was confined to elderly patients with MDD. Tolerability was consistent with the known pharmacological profile of quetiapine: the most common adverse events were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, dizziness and fatigue. Quetiapine XR is approved in the EU, USA and several other countries worldwide as adjunctive treatment for patients with MDD and an inadequate response to previous antidepressants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207