Long-term function and psychosocial outcomes with venlafaxine extended release 75–225 mg/day versus placebo in the PREVENT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This post-hoc analysis evaluated long-term psychosocial outcomes in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder treated with venlafaxine extended release (ER) 75-225 mg/day or placebo. Patients who responded to 10-week venlafaxine ER 75-300 mg/day treatment and maintained response through a 6-month continuation treatment were assigned randomly to venlafaxine ER or placebo maintenance-phase treatment. Data from responders to acute and continuation venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/day treatment were analyzed during 12-month maintenance treatment while receiving venlafaxine ER of up to 225 mg/day. Failure to maintain improvement in psychosocial functioning, on the basis of the Social Adjustment Scale-Self-Report, Life Enjoyment Scale, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Short-Form Health Survey, was defined as loss of at least 50% of the improvement from acute-phase baseline achieved during acute and continuation treatment or dose escalation of more than 225 mg/day. The probability of remaining well (no failure to maintain improvement in functioning) was significantly higher through 12-month maintenance treatment for patients treated with venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/day versus placebo Social Adjustment Scale-Self-Report, Life Enjoyment Scale, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Short-Form Health Survey component summary scores (all P≤0.0351). Effects of up to 20 months of treatment with venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/day on psychosocial functioning were consistent with the results for venlafaxine ER 75-300 mg/day.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".