Clinical guidelines on antidepressant withdrawal urgently need updating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In February 2018 the international debate on antidepressant withdrawal was reignited.1-4 In response to a letter published in the Times by Davies et al on the benefits and harms of antidepressants,1 the Royal College of Psychiatrists publicly stated that, “[for] the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment.”2 To support this claim the college referred to guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which state that “[withdrawal] symptoms are usually mild and self-limiting over about 1 week.”5 When Davies et al issued a freedom of information request to NICE asking for the evidence for its one week claim NICE was able to provide only two short review articles, neither of which supports the one week claim, although both cite numerous sources that contradict it.6 We think that NICE’s current position on antidepressant
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 | 0.045 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.048 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.021 |
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".