Real-world effectiveness of antidepressant use in persons with schizophrenia: within-individual study of 61,889 subjects
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
The aim of this study was to investigate the real-world effectiveness of antidepressant use in persons with schizophrenia. The register-based study cohort included all 61,889 persons treated in inpatient care due to schizophrenia during 1972-2014 in Finland. The main outcome was hospitalization due to psychosis and secondary outcomes included non-psychiatric hospitalization and all-cause mortality. We used within-individual design to compare the risk of hospitalization-based outcomes during the time periods of antidepressant use to antidepressant non-use periods within the same person, and traditional between-individual Cox models for mortality. The risk of psychosis hospitalization was lower during antidepressant use as compared to non-use (adjusted Hazard Ratio, aHR, 0.93, 95% CI 0.92-0.95). Antidepressants were associated with a decreased risk of mortality (aHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.85) and a slightly increased risk of non-psychiatric hospitalization (aHR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06). In conclusion, these results indicate that antidepressants might be useful and relatively safe to use in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it