Defining Anxious Depression: Going beyond Comorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Since publication of the DSM-IV, there remains a group of patients with depression and anxiety symptoms who are not well classified. We therefore wanted to determine more accurately the type of patients best described by the term "anxious depression." We also wanted to review the literature to assess the most appropriate treatment(s) for these patients. METHOD: We surveyed the medical literature published after 1994 for all articles containing the relevant terms and assessed all possible articles in detail to determine those relevant to the diagnosis and those that involved relevant clinical studies. RESULTS: The term anxious depression can encompass 3 groups of patients: those with comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD) and an anxiety disorder, those with MDD but with subthreshold anxiety symptoms, and those with subthreshold depressive and subthreshold anxiety symptoms (also called mixed anxiety and depressive disorder). CONCLUSIONS: Based upon our literature review, we believe that the term anxious depression should only be used for the second group; that is, those patients with an MDD and subthreshold anxiety symptoms. From our literature review to determine the most appropriate treatment for this group of patients, it appears likely that drugs inhibiting the reuptake of both noradrenaline and serotonin may have greater clinical utility than single-action drugs such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, it is also clear that much more research needs to be undertaken in this important patient group so that we can better understand its prevalence, clinical features, and treatment.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".