Effects of 50 and 100 mg desvenlafaxine versus placebo on sexual function in patients with major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the effect of short-term treatment with desvenlafaxine versus placebo on sexual dysfunction (SD), assessed from Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale scores, in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder. Data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 50 or 100 mg/day desvenlafaxine for major depressive disorder were pooled. SD status, determined from Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale scores, was assessed at baseline and week 8, last observation carried forward. Subgroup analyses addressed the effects of sex, baseline SD, and antidepressant response. At week 8, last observation carried forward (n=1562), SD rates were 54, 47, and 49% for 50 mg/day desvenlafaxine, 100 mg/day desvenlafaxine, and placebo, respectively [adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) vs. placebo: 1.205 (0.928, 1.564) and 1.129 (0.795, 1.604), respectively]. The treatment by baseline SD interaction approached statistical significance (P=0.0663), mainly driven by poorer scores for desvenlafaxine versus placebo in the 100 mg group. Treatment by sex interactions were not statistically significant. Small but statistically significant treatment by sex interactions were observed for sex drive (P=0.0011) and ease of erection/lubrication (P=0.0151). Although there was no overall effect of desvenlafaxine on SD, a treatment by baseline SD interaction was suggested for 100 mg desvenlafaxine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".