Responses to clinical treatment of bipolar versus unipolar depressive episodes in women versus men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether responses to treatment of major depressive episodes differ between women and men or with bipolar (BD) and major depressive disorders (MDD) remains unresolved. AIMS: To test for diagnostic and sex differences in responses to treatment of depression. METHODS: = 2990), using bivariate comparisons and multivariate modeling. RESULTS: Treatments included clinically individualized use of antidepressants (by 92.4%, in doses averaging 90.0 mg/day imipramine-equivalent), sometimes with mood-stabilizing agents (32.1%), second-generation antipsychotics (18.8%), or psychotherapy (38.6%). Depression ratings decreased by 60.6% to a final mean HDRS score of 7.44; response rate (⩾50% reduction in HDRS) averaged 63.7%. Outcomes were very similar in women and men as well as with BD versus MDD, and between BD subtypes. Moreover, age, duration of illness, initial HDRS score, dose of antidepressant, and weeks of treatment, as well as sex and diagnosis were not associated with improvement of HDRS with treatment. Only 6/42 comparisons involving 21 individual HDRS items differed significantly in improvement between sexes or diagnoses. Results were very similar to the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale depression ratings. Only 2.0% of the subjects experienced mood-switching into clinical (hypo)mania and the final Young Mania Rating Scale ratings averaged 0.63. CONCLUSIONS: Responses to clinical treatment (as % reduction of HDRS score, response rate, or final HDRS score) of depressed women versus men, and BD (including BD1 vs BD2) versus MDD were substantial and very similar.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".