A Computational Model to Characterize the Time-Course of Response to Rapid Antidepressant Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To propose a method capable of disentangling the magnitude, the speed, and the duration or decay rate of the time course of response to rapid antidepressant therapies. Methods: We introduce a computational model of the time course of response to a single treatment with a rapid antidepressant. Numerical simulation is used to evaluate whether model parameters can be accurately estimated from observed data. Finally, we compare our computational modelling-based approach with linear mixed effects modelling in terms of their ability to detect changes in the magnitude and time-course of response to rapid antidepressant therapies in simulated randomized trials. Results: Simulation experiments show that the parameters of our computational model can be accurately recovered using nonlinear least squares. Parameter estimation accuracy is stable over noise levels reaching as high as 25% of the true antidepressant effect magnitude. Comparison of our approach to mixed effects modelling using simulated randomized controlled trial data demonstrates an inability of linear mixed models to disentangle effect magnitude and time course, while our computational model accurately separates these response components. Conclusions: Our modelling approach may accurately identify the (A) magnitude, (B) speed, and (C) durability or decay rate of response to rapid antidepressant therapies. Future studies should fit this model to data from real clinical trials, and use resulting parameter estimates to uncover predictors and causes of different elements of the temporal course of antidepressant response.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".