MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Antidepressants on Sleep in Functional Dyspepsia

2015· article· en· W2978585456 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexMedicineEscitalopramPlaceboRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineAnxietySleep disorderDepression (economics)Physical therapyAntidepressantInsomniaPsychiatrySleep quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Individuals with functional dyspepsia (FD) frequently report non-gastrointestinal symptoms. Little is known about sleep quality in those with FD. Aim: To evaluate changes in sleep quality in response to antidepressant therapy in FD patients. Methods: The Functional Dyspepsia Treatment Trial (FDTT) was a 12-week, multi-center, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating antidepressants in FD. Subjects meeting Rome II criteria were randomized to placebo (PLA), 50 mg amitriptyline (AMI), or 10 mg escitalopram (ESC), were excluded if receiving antidepressant or psychotropic medication, had current drug/alcohol abuse, or scored ≥11 on the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). A Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was completed at baseline and after treatment. The association of baseline values with treatment group was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. An ITT ANCOVA (based on ranks) using baseline and balancing factors as covariates was used to assess post-treatment effects. Treatment effects on changes in PSQI scores were also assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: 292 subjects were randomized: mean age was 44, 219 (75%) were female. Baseline and posttreatment PSQI data were available from 261 (89%) and 185 (63%) individuals. Baseline mean global scores across the group indicated poor sleep quality (mean scores >5) in all treatment arms. The worst subscore was seen for Sleep Efficiency with an overall mean of 3.0 (SE 0.01) in all three arms. After treatment, Global Sleep and Sleep Efficiency scores remained poor across the three treatment arms. Overall treatment effects on Sleep Duration scores were observed (p=0.019) with lower (better) scores in the AMI arm compared to the PLA and ESC arms, but the change from baseline did not differ significantly among the treatment arms. Post-treatment scores for Sleep Quality, Sleep Latency, Sleep Efficiency, Sleep Disturbance, Sleep Medication, Daytime Dysfunction did not differ among treatment arms. There were overall borderline treatment effects on changes in Sleep Quality (p=0.05) with improved sleep (decreased scores) in the PLA arm compared to the antidepressant arms. Conclusion: Individuals with FD commonly report poor sleep quality. Sleep duration scores were better in those receiving amitriptyline, suggesting that a potential benefit of amitriptyline is improved length of sleep; however, its effects on sleep quality are otherwise modest at best.Table 1

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.356 · 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