MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166147101 · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0985-6

Strategic use of new generation antidepressants for depression: SUN(^_^) D protocol update and statistical analysis plan

2015· article· en· W2166147101 on OpenAlexaff
Naohiro Yonemoto, Shiro Tanaka, Toshi A. Furukawa, Tadashi Kato, Akio Mantani, Yusuke Ogawa, Aran Tajika, Nozomi Takeshima, Yu Hayasaka, Kiyomi Shinohara, Kazuhira Miki, Masatoshi Inagaki, Shinji Shimodera, Tatsuo Akechi, Mitsuhiko Yamada, Norio Watanabe, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceAstellas PharmaShionogiEisaiChugai PharmaceuticalPfizerDaiichi-SankyoGlaxoSmithKlineDaiichi Sankyo EuropeMeiji Seika PharmaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Depression (economics)Research designPsychiatryAlternative medicineStatisticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: SUN(^_^)D, the Strategic Use of New generation antidepressants for Depression, is an assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multicenter pragmatic mega-trial to examine the optimum treatment strategy for the first- and second-line treatments for unipolar major depressive episodes. The trial has three steps and two randomizations. Step I randomization compares the minimum and the maximum dosing strategy for the first-line antidepressant. Step II randomization compares the continuation, augmentation or switching strategy for the second-line antidepressant treatment. Step III is a naturalistic continuation phase. The original protocol was published in 2011, and we hereby report its updated protocol including the statistical analysis plan. RESULTS: We implemented two important changes to the original protocol. One is about the required sample size, reflecting the smaller number of dropouts than had been expected. Another is in the organization of the primary and secondary outcomes in order to make the report of the main trial results as pertinent and interpretable as possible for clinical practices. Due to the complexity of the trial, we plan to report the main results in two separate reports, and this updated protocol and the statistical analysis plan have laid out respective primary and secondary outcomes and their analyses. We will convene the blind interpretation committee before the randomization code is broken. CONCLUSION: This paper presents the updated protocol and the detailed statistical analysis plan for the SUN(^_^)D trial in order to avoid reporting bias and data-driven results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01109693 (registered on 21 April 2010).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.533
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.052 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207