HAM-D<sub>17</sub>and HAM-D<sub>6</sub>Sensitivity to Change in Relation to Desvenlafaxine Dose and Baseline Depression Severity in Major Depressive Disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This retrospective analysis compared sensitivity to change on the 17-item and 6-item Hamilton Rating Scales For Depression (HAM-D (17) and HAM-D (6), respectively) in relation to antidepressant dose and baseline depression severity. METHODS: Data were derived from 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trials of fixed-dose desvenlafaxine (50, 100, 200 or 400 mg/d) for major depressive disorder. HAM-D (17) and HAM-D (6) effect sizes were assessed. RESULTS: HAM-D (17) effect sizes were negative (favoured placebo) for higher desvenlafaxine doses (200-400 mg/d) at week 1, but were positive for all doses after week 2, with no clear dose-response pattern. However, HAM-D (6) effect sizes were positive for all doses at all weeks. Effect sizes were consistently greater for HAM-D (6) vs. HAM-D (17), regardless of time spent under therapy. Effect sizes were greater for HAM-D (6) vs. HAM-D (17) for all desvenlafaxine doses among patients with baseline HAM-D (17) <25, but not among patients with baseline HAM-D (17) ≥ 25. DISCUSSION: The HAM-D (6) demonstrated greater sensitivity to change and robustness than the HAM-D (17), supporting the greater homogeneity of the HAM-D (6).
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it