An Open-Label, Pilot Study Evaluating the Safety and Antidepressant Effects of Rellidep in Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 4 clinical studies of a biological tissue isolate (BTI) similar to Rellidep, the majority of subjects reported improved well-being and mood. Based on these reports of positive effect on mood in trials, an antidepressant pilot study was undertaken with the BTI Rellidep. METHOD: Twenty-three subjects (14 women and 9 men; mean age, 44.8 years) with major depressive disorder entered an 8-week trial of Rellidep with a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score of 18 or above. Three subjects dropped out before beginning treatment, leaving an intention-to-treat (ITT) sample of 20. Sixteen subjects completed the trial. All patients received Rellidep 1000 mg (500 mg × 2) twice a day orally daily for 8 weeks. No other treatments were permitted except for intermittent lorazepam for sleep if necessary. The primary response to treatment outcome was a 50% decline on the HAM-D. Secondary measures included the Beck Depression Inventory, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36, and Arizona Sexual Experience Scale. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 75% (15/20). Almost 87% of those who responded did so by week 4. The data analysis of change scores indicates that for the ITT population the decrease in the HAM-D was statistically significant (P < 0.001). On all other measures, improvement from baseline was statistically significant (P < 0.001), except for the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ITT: P = 0.055). There were no significant adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The positive outcome of this open trial indicates that Rellidep may be an effective and safe antidepressant. Further placebo-controlled trials are indicated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".