MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207046927 · doi:10.1097/jcp.0000000000001500

Distinct Effects of Antidepressants in Association With Mood Stabilizers and/or Antipsychotics in Unipolar and Bipolar Depression

2022· article· en· W4207046927 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Association (psychology)MoodBipolar disorderMood stabilizerLong-term potentiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with treatment-resistant unipolar (TRD) depression and depression in bipolar disorder (BD) despite similar treatment strategies. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the pharmacological combinations (antidepressants [AD], mood stabilizers [MS], and/or antipsychotics [AP]) used for TRD and BD at the McGill University Health Center. METHODS/PROCEDURES: We reviewed health records of 206 patients (76 TRD 130 BD) with TRD and BD treated with similar augmentation strategies including AD with MS (AD+MS) or AP (AD+AP) or combination (AD+AP+MS). Clinical outcomes were determined by comparing changes on the 17-time Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness at the beginning (T0) and after 3 months of an unchanged treatment (T3). FINDINGS/RESULTS: Baseline HAMD-17 scores in TRD were higher than in BD (P < 0.001), but TRD patients had a greater improvement at end point (P = 0.003). Antidepressants with AP generated greater reductions in HAMD-17 in TRD compared with BD (P = 0.02). Importantly, in BD patients, the addition of AD compared with other treatment strategies failed to improve the outcome. The limitations of this study include possibly unrepresentative subjects from tertiary care settings, incomplete matching of BD and TRD subjects, nonrandomized treatment with unmatched agents, doses, and times, unknown treatment adherence, and nonblinded retrospective outcome assessments. Nevertheless, the findings may reflect real-world interactions of clinically selected pharmacotherapies. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Combination of augmentation strategies such as AD+AP and/or MS showed a better clinical improvement in patients with TRD compared with BD suggesting a limited evidence for AD potentiation in BD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychopharmacologySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207