No association found between patients receiving isotretinoin for acne and the development of depression in a Canadian prospective cohort.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been concern that the use of isotretinoin to treat acne may lead to depression. To date, research has not conclusively determined if this concern is warranted when contemplating the use of isotretinoin. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of isotretinoin use for patients with acne on mood status. The hypothesis was that an association exists between the use of isotretinoin and the development of depression, aside from acne severity. METHODS: We studied the relationship between isotretinoin and depression using a prospective, controlled, cohort design. The study was conducted in a community dermatology clinic. The exposed cohort consisted of consenting patients who were initiating isotretinoin treatment for acne. Patients were either treated with isotretinoin (Acutaneï) therapy (study group) (N=100) or by oral (N=41) or topical acne therapy (control group) (N=59). The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale and the Zung Depression Status Inventory were used to assess depression both at baseline and after 2 months of prescribed use of isotretinoin or a control medication (topical or oral antibiotics). RESULTS: There was no correlation between isotretinoin use and the development of depression, based on either the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (Fisherâs exact test, P=0.497) or Zung Depression Status Inventory (ANOVA; F=1.4, P=0.2). CONCLUSION: Isotretinoin does not appear to be associated with the development of depression. Thus, denying patients with significant acne an effective medication for fear of developing depression may not be indicated at this point in time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".