MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167951079 · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.7.737

Treating Depression in Alzheimer Disease

2003· article· en· W2167951079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Constantine G. Lyketsos, Lourdes DelCampo, Martin H. Steinberg, Quincy Samus Miles, Cynthia D. Steele, Cynthia A. Munro, Alva Baker, Jeannie‐Marie E. Sheppard, Constantine Frangakis, Jason Brandt, Peter V. Rabins

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of General Psychiatry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsSertralineHamilton Rating Scale for DepressionDepression (economics)DementiaPlaceboRating scalePsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRandomized controlled trialAntidepressantPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicineMajor depressive disorderDiseaseCognitionAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Major depression affects about 25% of the patients who have Alzheimer disease and has serious adverse consequences for patients and caregivers. Results of prior antidepressant treatment studies have produced contradictory findings and have not fully assessed the benefits of depression reduction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of sertraline hydrochloride for the treatment of major depression in Alzheimer disease, and to evaluate the effect of depression reduction on activities of daily living, cognition, and nonmood behavioral disturbance. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel, 12-week, flexible-dose clinical trial with a 1-week, single-blind placebo phase. The study was conducted between January 1, 1998, and July 19, 2001. SETTING: University outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-four outpatients who have probable Alzheimer disease and major depressive episodes. INTERVENTION: Sertraline hydrochloride, mean dosage of 95 mg/d, or identical placebo, randomly assigned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response rate, Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Psychogeriatric Depression Rating Scale-activities of daily living subscale, and Neuropsychiatric Inventory to quantify patient behavior disturbance and caregiver distress. RESULTS: In the sertraline-treated group 9 patients (38%) were full responders and 11 (46%) were partial responders compared with 3 (20%) and 4 (15%), respectively, in the placebo-treated group (P =.007). The sertraline-treated group had greater improvements in the scores for the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (P =.002) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (P =.01), and a statistical trend toward less decline in activities of daily living on the Psychogeriatric Depression Rating Scale-activities of daily living subscale (P =.07). There was no difference between the treatment groups in Mini-Mental State Examination (P =.22) or Neuropsychiatric Inventory (P =.32) ratings over time. When full responders, partial responders, and nonresponders were compared, full responders only, or full and partial responders had significantly better ratings on activities of daily living (P =.04), behavioral disturbance (P =.01), and caregiver distress (P =.006), but not on the Mini-Mental State Examination (P =.76). Safety monitoring indicated few differences in adverse effects between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sertraline is superior to placebo for the treatment of major depression in Alzheimer disease. Depression reduction is accompanied by lessened behavior disturbance and improved activities of daily living, but not improved cognition.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations392
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of General PsychiatrySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207