MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213354464 · doi:10.1093/ijnp/pyac017

Sex Differences in Responses to Antidepressant Augmentations in Treatment-Resistant Depression

2022· review· en· W4213354464 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christophe Moderie, Nicolás A. Núñez, Allan Fielding, Stefano Comai, Gabriella Gobbi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsDepression (economics)HamdRating scaleClinical Global ImpressionAnxietyMoodPsychiatryMajor depressive disorderHamilton Anxiety Rating ScaleAntidepressantPsychologyPsychomotor retardationSomatic anxietyMedicineClinical psychologyInternal medicineAlternative medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Women are nearly twice as likely as men to suffer from major depressive disorder. Yet, there is a dearth of studies comparing the clinical outcomes of women and men with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) treated with similar augmentation strategies. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the augmentation strategies in women and men at the McGill University Health Center. METHODS: We reviewed health records of 76 patients (42 women, 34 men) with TRD, treated with augmentation strategies including antidepressants (AD) with mood stabilizers (AD+MS), antipsychotics (AD+AP), or in combination (AD+AP+MS). Clinical outcomes were determined by comparing changes on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-C16), and Clinical Global Impression rating scale (CGI-S) at the beginning and after 3 months of an unchanged treatment. Changes in individual items of the HAMD-17 were also compared between the groups. RESULTS: Women and men improved from beginning to 3 months on all scales (P < .001, η p2 ≥ 0.68). There was also a significant sex × time interaction for all scales (P < .05, η p2 ≥ 0.06), reflecting a greater improvement in women compared with men. Specifically, women exhibited greater improvement in early (P = .03, η p2 = 0.08) and middle-of-the-night insomnia (P = .01, η p2 = 0.09) as well as psychomotor retardation (P < .001 η p2 = 0.16) and psychic (P = .02, η p2 = 0.07) and somatic anxiety (P = .01, η p2 = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of AD+AP/MS generates a significantly greater clinical response in women compared with men with TRD, supporting the existence of distinct pharmacological profiles between sexes in our sample. Moreover, they emphasize the benefit of augmentation strategies in women, underscoring the benefit of addressing symptoms such as insomnia and anxiety with AP and MS.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of NeuropsychopharmacologySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207