Current and Common Definitions of Treatment-Resistant Depression: Findings from a Systematic Review and Qualitative Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: No universal definition for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) exists. This lack of consensus reduces the generalizability of study findings and limits the ability to study TRD. In addition, anecdotally, there may be a difference between the definitions of TRD within research and those applied in practice. Thus, the objective of this work was to identify current common definitions of TRD used in both research and clinical practice. METHOD: A systematic review of published literature was conducted to document TRD definitions. Extracted data were grouped based on patient cohort and method of defining TRD. Validation studies were narratively summarized. Interviews with 6 key informants were conducted to understand how definitions are applied in practice. RESULTS: In total, 155 definitions for TRD were identified in the published literature, and 48.4% of all definitions specified requirement of at least 2 treatment failures. Key informant interviews indicated the concept of TRD is rarely employed in clinical practice. Instead, concepts like "complex needs," "struggling with their disease," and "chronic" are used. When asked directly about how they would define TRD, interview participants said an adequate trial of psychotherapy as well as an adequate trial of at least 2 to 3 antidepressant medications. CONCLUSIONS: There is no universally accepted definition of TRD, and substantial heterogeneity exists. This study indicates discordance between the use of the term in research and clinical practice, with several key informants emphasizing that the terminology is rarely used in their clinical experience. Development of a shared, common definition across practice and research is required.
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 | 0.179 | 0.252 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".