MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381511092 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1129386

Evaluation of a male-specific psychotherapeutic program for major depressive disorder compared to cognitive behavioral therapy and waitlist: study protocol for a six-arm randomized clinical superiority trial examining depressed eugonadal and hypogonadal men receiving testosterone

2023· article· en· W4381511092 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Walther, Ulrike Ehlert, Michèle Schneeberger, Lukas Eggenberger, Christoph Flückiger, Nikola Komlenac, Adrian Heald, Timothy Rice, Simona Palm, Zac E. Seidler, John S. Ogrodniczuk, John L. Oliffe, Simon Rice, David Kealy, Rainer Weber, David Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTestosterone (patch)Randomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Major depressive disorderInterpersonal psychotherapyPsychologyCognitive behavioral therapyGroup psychotherapyMedicineClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in men is complicated by the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideologies (TMI) often leading to reluctance toward psychotherapy, therapy interfering processes, or premature termination. In addition, it has been shown that men with MDD have a significantly increased risk of being hypogonadal (e.g., total testosterone levels <12.1 nmoL/L). Therefore, it is recommended to examine depressed men with regard to their testosterone status and if hypogonadism is present to combine psychotherapy with testosterone treatment (TT). Aim: This project aims to evaluate a male-specific psychotherapeutic program (MSPP) for MDD in depressed eugonadal and hypogonadal men receiving testosterone in comparison to a standard cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for MDD and a Waitlist. Methods: The study presents a 2×3 factorial study design. In total, 144 men aged between 25 and 50 will be stratified by testosterone status (eugonadal/hypogonadal) and then randomized into one of the three conditions (MSPP, CBT, or Waitlist). Additionally, a healthy control group of 100 men will be recruited, which will undergo only baseline assessments. Both standardized psychotherapy programs will encompass 18 sessions delivered in a weekly manner. Aligned with the TT-related medical visits of the 72 hypogonadal men, all participants will be followed up with clinical assessments and bio sampling at weeks 0, 6, 15, 24, and 36. Expected results: Compared to Waitlist control groups, treatment groups are expected to be more effective and efficacious (depression score reduction of ≥50%) at week 24 and at the follow-up at week 36. The MSPP is expected to show higher effectiveness and efficacy for depressive symptoms and higher acceptability (lower dropout rate) as compared to CBT. Discussion: This study represents the first attempt to test a male-specific psychotherapy for MDD in a single-setting compared to standard CBT and a Waitlist control condition using randomized clinical trial methodology. In addition, the potential positive adjunct effect of psychotherapy to TT in reducing depressive burden and improving quality of life in hypogonadal depressed men represents a neglected research area and might introduce new hypogonadism screening procedures in depressed men and combined treatment approaches for depressed men suffering from hypogonadism. Limitations are the rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, which limit the generalizability of the study results to first episode treatment naïve depressed men. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05435222.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207