MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288237226 · doi:10.2147/ndt.s91311

The noradrenergic paradox: implications in the management of depression and anxiety

2016· review· en· W2288237226 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSTART ClinicEli Lilly (Canada)
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyPanic disorderVenlafaxineAntidepressantSocial anxietyPsychiatryGeneralized anxiety disorderSerotonergicMonoaminergicMajor depressive disorderFluoxetineParoxetineReboxetineClinical psychologyReuptake inhibitorInternal medicineSerotoninMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both major depressive disorder and the anxiety disorders are major causes of disability and markedly contribute to a significant global burden of the disease worldwide. In part because of the significant socioeconomic burden associated with these disorders, theories have been developed to specifically build clinical treatment approaches. One such theory, the monoaminergic hypothesis, has led to the development of several generations of selective and nonselective inhibitors of transporters of serotonin and norepinephrine, with the goal of augmenting monoaminergic transmission. These efforts have led to considerable success in the development of antidepressant therapeutics. However, there is a strong correlation between enhanced noradrenergic activity and fear and anxiety. Consequently, some physicians have expressed concerns that the same enhanced noradrenergic activity that alleviates depression could also promote anxiety. The fact that the serotonergic and noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors are successfully used in the treatment of anxiety and panic disorders seems paradoxical. This review was undertaken to determine if any clinical evidence exists to show that serotonergic and noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors can cause anxiety. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched, and the results limited to randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies performed in nongeriatric adults and with clear outcome measures were reported. Based on these criteria, a total of 52 studies were examined. Patients in these studies suffered from depression or anxiety disorders (generalized and social anxiety disorders, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder). The large majority of these studies employed venlafaxine or duloxetine, and the remainder used tri-cyclic antidepressants, atomoxetine, or reboxetine. All the studies reported clinically significant alleviation of depressive and/or anxious symptoms by these therapeutics. In none of these studies was anxiety a treatment-emergent adverse effect. This review argues against the impression that enhanced generalized noradrenergic activity promotes the emergence of anxiety.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.318 · 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