Timing of Adjunctive Therapy in the Treatment of Depression: A Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to examine the evolution of antidepressant switch and adjunctive therapy. METHODS: This chart review was conducted at 6 primary psychiatric clinics or hospitals, in Tokyo, Japan. A chart review of longitudinal prescriptions was conducted regarding 633 outpatients with major depressive disorder for up to 2 years after their first visit. Patients who had already received antidepressants prior to the visit were excluded. RESULTS: 22.6% (N=143) of the patients completed or continued the outpatient treatment over the 2 years while 27 (4.3%), 23 (3.6%), and 439 (69.4%) patients discontinued it due to hospitalization, referral to another clinic, and loss to follow-up, respectively. A total of 597 episodes of antidepressant treatment were identified. Among them, 482 episodes (80.7%) were associated with the suggested dose ranges while antidepressant drugs were under-dosed in 19.3% (N=115) of the episodes. 50 patients (7.9%) received adjunctive therapy; it was employed after a median of only one antidepressant had been tried. CONCLUSION: Psychiatrists may be hasty in prescribing an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of depression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".