MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964448780 · doi:10.1080/14737175.2019.1653759

Brexpiprazole as an augmentation agent to antidepressants in treatment resistant major depressive disorder

2019· review· en· W2964448780 on OpenAlexaff
S. Danielle, Xinyi Luo, Juhie Ahmed, Larissa Becirovic, H. Rebekah, Roger S. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBrain and Cognition Discovery FoundationUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderPsychiatryMedicineTreatment-resistant depressionPsychologyPsychotherapistMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Approximately 50% of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who receive a first-line antidepressant treatment, at an appropriate dose, do not achieve an adequate response. Brexpiprazole is a novel serotonin-dopamine activity modulator in the second generation/atypical antipsychotic class that was approved by the United States Food & Drug Administration in 2015 for use as an adjunctive agent in the treatment of MDD inadequately responsive to antidepressant treatment. In general, second generation/atypical antipsychotics are widely used in the treatment of treatment resistant depression with brexpiprazole providing preliminary evidence for broad-spectrum efficacy across multiple domains affected by MDD, providing a basis for further elucidating its mechanistic effects to inform novel drug discovery.Areas covered: The review herein presents the evidence base for the use of brexpiprazole as an augmentation agent to antidepressants in individuals with treatment resistant MDD, including its efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile.Expert opinion: Brexpiprazole has been demonstrated to be effective and safe to use as an augmentation agent to antidepressant treatment among individuals with treatment resistant MDD due to its considerably improved tolerability profile when compared to other second generation/atypical antipsychotics; however, it is important to exercise clinical judgment when selecting disparate augmentation agents on a case-by-case basis weighing individual risks versus benefits

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207