MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Combining clinical variables to optimize prediction of antidepressant treatment outcomes

2016· article· en· W2312185171 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

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersEuropean CommissionKing's College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsEscitalopramCitalopramMajor depressive disorderPsychologyNortriptylineAntidepressantMoodAgomelatineDepression (economics)AnxietyClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The outcome of treatment with antidepressants varies markedly across people with the same diagnosis. A clinically significant prediction of outcomes could spare the frustration of trial and error approach and improve the outcomes of major depressive disorder through individualized treatment selection. It is likely that a combination of multiple predictors is needed to achieve such prediction. We used elastic net regularized regression to optimize prediction of symptom improvement and remission during treatment with escitalopram or nortriptyline and to identify contributing predictors from a range of demographic and clinical variables in 793 adults with major depressive disorder. A combination of demographic and clinical variables, with strong contributions from symptoms of depressed mood, reduced interest, decreased activity, indecisiveness, pessimism and anxiety significantly predicted treatment outcomes, explaining 5-10% of variance in symptom improvement with escitalopram. Similar combinations of variables predicted remission with area under the curve 0.72, explaining approximately 15% of variance (pseudo R(2)) in who achieves remission, with strong contributions from body mass index, appetite, interest-activity symptom dimension and anxious-somatizing depression subtype. Escitalopram-specific outcome prediction was more accurate than generic outcome prediction, and reached effect sizes that were near or above a previously established benchmark for clinical significance. Outcome prediction on the nortriptyline arm did not significantly differ from chance. These results suggest that easily obtained demographic and clinical variables can predict therapeutic response to escitalopram with clinically meaningful accuracy, suggesting a potential for individualized prescription of this antidepressant drug.

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)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.303 · 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