Minimal clinically important change in the MADRS anhedonia factor score: A pooled analysis of open-label studies with vortioxetine in patients with major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is previously reported that the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) anhedonia factor score is correlated with scales assessing function in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: This was an analysis of a database including 5 long-term, extension studies of prior controlled trials, which evaluated the effects of open-label, maintenance treatment with vortioxetine (5-20 mg/day over 1-year) in adults with MDD. We assessed the association of changes in MADRS anhedonia factor scores with changes in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), Sheehan Disability scale (SDS), and the SF-36. A minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for MADRS anhedonia factor scores was determined using the CGI-S as anchor. RESULTS: In patients who had completed the prior controlled studies, MADRS anhedonia factor scores continued to improve over 1-year of maintenance treatment (mean ± SE change from baseline of -6.2 ± 0.2 at Month 12). Change in MADRS anhedonia factors score correlated with change in CGI-S (Week 4, r = 0.71), SDS (Week 24 r = 0.60) and SF-36 domains (Week 24 r = -0.19 to -0.61) scores. Using a 1 level improvement on CGI-S as anchor, the MCIC for MADRS anhedonia factor scores versus baseline were - 4.6 at Week 4, -5.5 at Week 24, and - 5.3 at Week 52. LIMITATIONS: Neither the MADRS scale, nor the primary studies, were specifically designed to assess anhedonia. CONCLUSIONS: These open-label data suggest that patients treated with vortioxetine continued to show clinically relevant improvements in their anhedonia over 1-year of maintenance therapy. Improvements in anhedonia correlated with improvements in measures of functioning and quality of life.
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 | 0.033 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".