Procognitive Effects of Antidepressants and Other Therapeutic Agents in Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy of antidepressants and other therapeutic agents for the treatment of cognitive impairment in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). DATA SOURCES: We conducted a database search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase through Ovid on May 7, 2019. The year of publication was not restricted. The search terms "Major Depressive Disorder," "depress*," "cognit*," and "therapeutics" were used. STUDY SELECTION: The studies included in this review were clinical trials of antidepressants and other therapeutic agents in MDD populations. Participants were aged between 18 and 65 years and had a DSM-III, -IV, or -5 diagnosis of MDD. In total, 2,045 research papers were screened, 53 full-text articles were assessed, and 26 articles were eligible to be included in this systematic review. DATA EXTRACTION: The data and quality of research papers were assessed and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through a third reviewer. RESULTS: Overall, studies demonstrated that tricyclic antidepressants do not have procognitive effects, while vortioxetine and bupropion have demonstrated procognitive effects in MDD populations relative to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Several non-antidepressant agents, such as modafinil, amphetamines, and erythropoietin, have also demonstrated significant positive effects on cognition in depression. CONCLUSIONS: Present-day antidepressants and other agents have demonstrated procognitive effects in MDD, but the findings between various agents are mixed. Further research looking at objective measures of cognitive performance would be helpful to obtain more definitive results regarding the efficacy of therapeutics for cognitive impairment in MDD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".