MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912765842 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00017

The Efficacy of Vortioxetine on Anhedonia in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

2019· article· en· W2912765842 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalBrain and Cognition Discovery FoundationUniversity Health Network
FundersH. Lundbeck A/S
KeywordsAnhedoniaVortioxetineMajor depressive disorderPsychiatryQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineDepression (economics)Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating ScaleAntidepressantAgomelatinePsychologyClinical psychologyInternal medicineMoodSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Anxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Anhedonia is a common, persistent and disabling phenomenon in treated adults with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Hitherto, relatively few antidepressant agents have been evaluated with respect to their effect on anhedonia in MDD. Methods This is a post-hoc analysis of a primary study that sought to evaluate the sensitivity to change of the THINC-integrated tool (THINC-it) in MDD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03053362). Adults meeting DSM-5 criteria for MDD with at least moderate depressive symptom severity [i.e. Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥ 20] were eligible. Subjects were recruited between October 2017 and August 2018 in Toronto, Ontario at the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation. All subjects received open-label vortioxetine (10-20 mg/day, flexibly-dosed) for 8 weeks. Herein, the primary outcome of interest was the change from baseline to endpoint in the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) total score, as well as the MADRS anhedonia factor. The mediational effects of improvements in anhedonia on general function and quality of life, as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and the 5-Item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5), were secondarily assessed. Results A total of 100 subjects with MDD were enrolled in the primary study and began treatment with vortioxetine. Vortioxetine significantly improved anhedonia as evidenced by significant baseline to endpoint improvements in SHAPS and MADRS anhedonia factor scores (p < 0.0001). Improvements in the SHAPS and the MADRS anhedonia factor correlated with improvements in general function (i.e. SDS) and quality of life (i.e. WHO-5) (p < 0.0001). Notably, improvements in anhedonia were found to mediate the association between improvements in overall depressive symptom severity (i.e., MADRS total score) and social functioning (i.e., social life component of the SDS) (p=0.026). Conclusion The unmet need in depression is to improve patient functioning and other patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life). Antidepressant interventions capable of attenuating anhedonia as well as cognitive dysfunction in MDD may help in this regard, as improvement in these domains have been associated with improvement in psychosocial function and quality of life.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it