Depressive Personality and Treatment Outcome in Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depressive personality disorder (DPD) is currently included in the DSM-IV Appendix B, Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study. Evidence of the clinical utility of DPD will likely play an important role in the determination of whether it warrants inclusion in future editions of DSM. The current investigation examines the capacity of DPD traits to predict overall and preferential treatment outcome for patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (N = 120) using data from a randomized control trial, which included cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), and antidepressant medication (ADM) treatment arms. Patients were treated for 16-20 weeks and completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Questionnaire (SCID-II/PQ) and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression immediately before and after treatment. Higher scores on a dimensionalized SCID-II/PQ subscale assessing DPD traits were associated with poor outcome for IPT, but not CBT or ADM. This result remained after accounting for variance associated with other personality disorder (PD) traits; none of the other 10 main text PDs predicted treatment outcome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".