Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor-Treatment Does Not Show Beneficial Effects on Cognition or Amyloid Burden in Cognitively Impaired and Cognitively Normal Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preclinical studies indicate that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) have beneficial effects on Alzheimer-related pathologies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of SSRI-treatment on amyloid burden in 18 F-Florbetapir-positron emission tomography (PET) and on cognition in cognitively normal and cognitively impaired subjects. We included n = 755 cognitively impaired and n = 394 cognitively normal participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) that underwent at least one 18 F-Florbetapir-PET. Standardized uptake ratios (SUVR) and the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS) scores as well as follow-up results were compared between subgroups with a history of SSRI-treatment (SSRI+) and without SSRI-treatment (SSRI-) as well as in subgroups of SSRI+/Depression+ and SSRI+/Depression- and SSRI-/Depression+ and SSRI-/Depression-. 18 F-Florbetapir-PET did not show significant differences of SUVR between the SSRI+ and SSRI- groups in both, cognitively impaired and cognitively normal participants. There were no differences in subgroups of SSRI+/Depression+ and SSRI+/Depression- and SSRI-/Depression+ and SSRI-/Depression-. However, SUVR showed a dose-dependent inverse correlation to the duration of medication in cognitively normal and in cognitively impaired patients. SRRI-treatment did not show an effect on ADAS scores. Furthermore, there was no effect on follow-up SUVR or on follow-up ADAS scores. Overall, SSRI-treatment did not show beneficial effects on amyloid load nor on cognition.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".