Real-world effectiveness of antidepressant use in persons with schizophrenia: within-individual study of 61,889 subjects
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".