Paroxetine versus Vortioxetine for Depressive Symptoms in Postmenopausal Transition: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The impact of menopause is a consequence of social, physical and mental changes; hormonal changes play an important role in inducing an increased risk of developing depressive symptoms. It is essential to treat mood and vasomotor symptoms and to prevent their onset to promote an improvement in the quality of life, both in terms of clinical and psychological conditions. Objective: This observational study aims to compare paroxetine and vortioxetine in a sample of patients affected by postmenopausal depression attending the Anxiety and Depression Clinic in terms of: efficacy in determining clinical remission (HDRS ≤ 7) and tolerability; improvement of autonomic and cognitive symptoms. Methods: 39 female outpatients with a diagnosis of Postmenopausal Depression (according to DSM-5 criteria) were evaluated as the routine clinical practice through the following scales: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS); Menopause Rating Scale (MRS); Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC); data from/of baseline, after 8 weeks and 12 weeks were recorded. Results: Both antidepressants resulted to be effective in clinical remission (HDRS ≤ 7) without statistical differences between the two groups (p = 0.3), although paroxetine showed a faster remission than vortioxetine (p = 0.01). Autonomic symptoms showed a higher improvement in the vortioxetine group (p = 0.002). Paroxetine group referred insomnia and sexual problems while patients taking vortioxetine referred diarrhoea and palpitations. Data show a superiority of cognitive performance in the Paroxetine group (p = 0.005), contrary to what stated in literature. Conclusions: Data are related to a small sample retrospectively assessed trough a 6-month observation period. Thus, the preliminary results need further research to be confirmed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".