A randomized placebo‐controlled trial examining the effects of escitalopram on neuroticism and state anxiety in a nonclinical sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study reanalyzed data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial that failed to find an effect of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor escitalopram on neuroticism and state anxiety in a nonclinical sample. The purpose was to test for unique effects on two neuroticism factors, trait anxiety and mood instability, and to explore whether neuroticism moderated the effect of escitalopram on state anxiety. METHODS: The sample included 80 adults who had a first-degree relative with major depression but without any psychiatric disorders themselves. Participants were randomized to escitalopram 10 mg/day or placebo for 4 weeks. Neuroticism was assessed with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and state anxiety with the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). RESULTS: The main effects on the neuroticism factors were not statistically significant, although there was a significant interaction such that the effect of escitalopram compared with placebo on HAM-A scores was statistically significant in participants with higher levels of EPQ trait anxiety, even after controlling for baseline HAM-A scores. A similar interaction with EPQ mood instability was nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: A potential beneficial effect of escitalopram on neuroticism may be driven by reductions in anxiety.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".