Folates and S-Adenosylmethionine for Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in nonpharmaceutical supplements for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) has increased significantly, both among patients and among clinicians during the past decades. Despite the large array of antidepressants (ADs) available, many patients continue to experience relatively modest response and remission rates, in addition to a burden of side effects that can hinder treatment compliance and acceptability. In this article, we review the literature on folates and S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe), 2 natural compounds linked in the 1-carbon cycle metabolic pathway, for which substantial evidence supports their involvement in mood disorders. Background information, efficacy data, proposed mechanisms of action, and side effects are reviewed. Based on existing data, supplementation with SAMe, as well as with various formulations of folates, appears to be efficacious and well tolerated in reducing depressive symptoms. Compared with other forms of folates, 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (L-methylfolate or 5-MTHF) may represent a preferable treatment option for MDD given its greater bioavailability in patients with a genetic polymorphism, and the lower risk of specific side effects associated with folic acid. Although further randomized controlled trials in this area appear warranted, SAMe and L-methylfolate may represent a useful addition to the AD armamentarium.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".