Evidence to Support Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale Administration Every 24 Hours to Assess Rapid Onset of Treatment Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the suitability of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), with a 24-hour recall period (MADRS-24hr), to assess the rapid onset of the antidepressant effect of a treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Psychometric properties of the MADRS-24hr were assessed together with qualitative assessment of content validity. METHODS: Content validity was assessed using semistructured interviews conducted from November 2013 to December 2013 in patients (18-64 years old) with TRD who met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria and health care professionals (HCPs) experienced in treating major depressive disorder and familiar with using the MADRS. The psychometric properties of MADRS-24hr were evaluated using data from 2 randomized clinical studies involving patients with TRD. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients (15 [65%] women) with TRD (mean age = 45 years) and 11 HCPs were interviewed. With the exception of reduced sleep, the majority of patients and HCPs reported that the items captured in the MADRS can fluctuate in a 24-hour period. The majority of participants also reported that a meaningful change in depression symptoms could be assessed in a 24-hour recall period, except for reduced sleep and appetite. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the MADRS-24hr showed that this instrument had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α of 0.84 and 0.91) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.96 and 0.91), had construct validity, and was responsive to change following an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results suggest that MADRS-24hr can be used to assess the rapid onset of antidepressant efficacy of a treatment in patients with TRD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01627782 and NCT01640080.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".