Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors Improve Cognitive Function in Partial Responders Depressed Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major Depressive disorder (MDD) is often accompanied by cognitive deficits, involving attention, learning, memory and executive functioning. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs) show efficacy on affective symptoms, but it is unclear whether or not they improve cognitive symptoms. METHODS: We carried out a 12 week-prospective observational study in two cohorts of recurrent moderate-severe partial responder MDD patients, to test the hypothesis that SSRIs and/or SNRIs may affect cognitive symptoms and assess whether or not such an effect was correlated to their effect on affective symptoms. All patients underwent cognitive and neuropsychiatric assessment at baseline, 4- and 12-week follow-up. Thirty-three patients in the SSRI- and sixteen patients in the SNRI-cohort completed the follow-up. RESULTS: Both SSRIs and SNRIs reduced affective symptoms and improved global cognitive function. Both SSRIs and SNRIs improved executive function and verbal memory. Global cognitive function, verbal memory and executive function improved both in full and partial responder patients. Finally, there was no correlation between baseline Mini Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Frontal Assessment Battery scores and the mean change in Hamilton Psychiatric Rating scale for Depression or Beck Depression Inventory at the end of the 12 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: Present data show that SSRIs and SNRIs improve cognitive symptoms in MDD independently from their efficacy on affective symptoms. Affective and cognitive symptoms may represent distinct psychopathological dimensions of MDD with different response to antidepressant drugs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".