The effects of intranasal oxytocin on the efficacy of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Although both pharmacotherapy and psychological treatments are considered to be efficacious in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), one third of patients do not respond to treatment and many experience residual symptoms post-treatment. In this double-blind placebo-controlled randomized control trial (RCT), we assessed whether intranasal oxytocin (OT) augments the therapeutic efficacy of psychotherapy for MDD and improves the therapeutic alliance. Methods Twenty-three volunteers (12 female) with MDD underwent 16 sessions of interpersonal therapy. Prior to each session, volunteers self-administered 24 International Units of intranasal OT (n = 12; Syntocinon) or placebo (n = 11). Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology at pre- and post-treatment, and at a six month follow-up. Results Multilevel modeling found a significant effect of OT on the negative slope of depressive symptoms over time (p < 0.05), with medium-large effect sizes at post-treatment (Cohen's d = 0.75) and follow-up (Cohen's d = 0.82). Drug intervention also predicted the intercept when examining the weekly ratings of the therapeutic alliance (p < 0.05), such that volunteers receiving OT, relative to placebo, reported improved therapeutic alliance at session 1. The agreement of goals between therapists and participants, a facet of the therapeutic alliance, mediated the relationship between drug intervention and clinical outcome. Conclusion In this pilot study, the administration of intranasal OT, relative to placebo, improved the therapeutic alliance at the beginning of therapy and therapeutic efficacy of psychotherapy in persons with MDD. Future RCTs should attempt to replicate these findings in larger samples with different therapeutic modalities (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02405715).
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".