MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161001337 · doi:10.1345/aph.1a265

Fluoxetine in the Treatment of Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder

2002· review· en· W2161001337 on OpenAlexaff
Roxane Carr, Mary H. H. Ensom

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremenstrual dysphoric disorderFluoxetineMedicinePlaceboPsychiatryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineMenstrual cycleSerotoninAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of fluoxetine in the treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). DATA SOURCES: Search strategy included MEDLINE (1966-February 2002), Embase (1988-February 2002), HealthStar (1975-December 2000), Current Contents (1996-November 2001), and Copernic (November 2001). Search terms included fluoxetine, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, PMDD, late luteal-phase dysphoric disorder, and severe premenstrual syndrome. STUDY SELECTION: English-language human studies were selected and evaluated based on quality of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight prospective trials (3 double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover; 3 double-blind, randomized, controlled; 2 open-label), 1 case series, and 1 meta-analysis were identified. Although 6 of the studies involved small sample sizes (n < 50), all found fluoxetine to be effective in the treatment of PMDD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited data, fluoxetine 20 mg/d appears to be effective in the treatment of PMDD. However, adverse effects, particularly headaches and sexual dysfunction, are possible. Given the long half-life of fluoxetine and the short duration of PMDD symptoms per cycle, larger, well-designed clinical trials evaluating intermittent dosing for only 1 week or a few doses need to be performed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207