COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF ANTIDEPRESSANTS ON COGNITION FUNCTIONS IN PATIENTS OF MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDERS IN TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL IN HARYANA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Depression is one of the most common mood disorders. Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) usually present alterations in various cognitive functions. Several cost-effective interventions have shown favorable recovery and positive outcomes in the care and management of depression. The objective of the study was to compare the effect of fluoxetine (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), and venlafaxine (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) on cognitive functioning in patients with MDD.
 Methods: This prospective, single-blinded, randomized, and comparative interventional clinical study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Haryana. Fifty-two patients of MDD (ICD-10) were randomly divided into two groups: Group F and Group V, allocated to receive fluoxetine and venlafaxine, respectively. The assessment was done during the enrolment and at the end of the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th weeks of treatment using the ABC-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale.
 Statistical Analysis Used: The intragroup analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA while intergroup analysis was performed using unpaired “t”-test. p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
 Results: Mean HAM-D score was clinically as well as statistically significant at the end of the 12th week of treatment as compared to baseline in both the groups while on the intergroup comparison, there was no statistically significant difference in both groups. The mean MoCA score was (25±2.19) in Group F and (23.76±6.97) in Group V at the end of the 12th week. On intergroup analysis at the 12th week, a statistically significant improvement in cognitive functions was observed in patients Group F as compared to Group V (p<0.05).
 Conclusions: The study of fluoxetine comparatively better improves cognition functions as compared to venlafaxine.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".