MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial of Augmentation and Switch Strategies for Refractory Social Anxiety Disorder

2014· article· en· W2148075979 on OpenAlexaff
Mark H. Pollack, Michael Van Ameringen, Naomi M. Simon, J Worthington, Elizabeth A. Hoge, Aparna Keshaviah, Murray B. Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsHamilton General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsSertralineClonazepamSocial anxietyRefractory (planetary science)BenzodiazepineVenlafaxineAnxiety disorderAnxietyRandomized controlled trialVenlafaxine HydrochloridePsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineDouble blindClinical trialAntidepressantMedicinePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Most patients remain symptomatic after an initial intervention with approved treatments for generalized social anxiety disorder. This randomized controlled trial provides systematic, prospectively derived data on the relative benefits of "next-step" pharmacotherapies to improve outcomes for individuals with generalized social anxiety disorder who remain symptomatic after initial treatment. METHOD: This three site, 12-week, double-blind randomized controlled trial compared the relative benefits of three strategies for patients remaining symptomatic (Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale [LSAS] score >50) after a 10-week trial of sertraline alone: the addition of up to 3.0 mg/day of clonazepam (sertraline plus clonazepam), a switch to up to 225 mg/day of venlafaxine, or prolonged sertraline treatment with placebo (sertraline plus placebo). RESULTS: A total of 397 participants received at least one dose of sertraline; 181 nonresponders (LSAS score >50) at week 10 were randomly assigned to sertraline plus clonazepam, switch to venlafaxine, or sertraline plus placebo. Overall, 21% of patients achieved remission (LSAS score ≤30) at the endpoint, and 27% of patients assigned to sertraline plus clonazepam achieved remission compared with patients assigned to sertraline plus placebo (17%) or venlafaxine (19%), but the differences did not reach significance. Sertraline plus clonazepam was associated with a significantly greater drop in LSAS severity (p=0.020) and disability (p=0.0028) compared with sertraline plus placebo; no significant differences were observed on these parameters between venlafaxine and either sertraline plus placebo or sertraline plus clonazepam. In supplemental analysis, the overall response rate (LSAS score ≤50) was 46%, including a significantly greater proportion of patients in the sertraline plus clonazepam group (56%) compared with the sertraline plus placebo group responding (36%; p=0.027); differences did not reach significance between venlafaxine and sertraline plus placebo or sertraline plus clonazepam. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the clonazepam augmentation strategy provides relative benefits for sertraline nonresponders in social anxiety disorder.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations76
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychiatrySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207