Sex Differences in Responses to Antidepressant Augmentations in Treatment-Resistant Depression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it