The effect of adjunctive cariprazine on symptoms of anhedonia in patients with major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anhedonia is a core diagnostic symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD). Post hoc analyses evaluated cariprazine plus antidepressant treatment (ADT) in patients with MDD and moderate-to-severe anhedonia. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a positive phase 3, randomized, fixed-dose (1.5 or 3 mg/d), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group cariprazine study (NCT03738215). Post hoc outcomes (e.g., change from baseline to week 6 in MADRS total score, MADRS anhedonia subscale score, MADRS anhedonia subscale item scores including item 8 [inability to feel]) were assessed in 2 anhedonia patient subgroups (baseline MADRS anhedonia subscale score ≥ 18; baseline MADRS anhedonia item 8 score ≥ 4) using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Most patients met subgroup inclusion criteria (anhedonia subscale score ≥ 18 = 584 [77.8 %]; anhedonia item 8 score ≥ 4 = 508 [67.6 %]). LSMDs in change from baseline were statistically significant in favor of adjunctive cariprazine versus adjunctive placebo in the MADRS anhedonia subscale score ≥ 18 subgroup (MADRS total score: 1.5 mg/d = -3.4, p = .0006; 3 mg/d = -2.1, p = .0358; anhedonia subscale score: 1.5 mg/d = -2.1, p = .0010; 3 mg/d = -1.26, p = .0399) and in the anhedonia item 8 score ≥ 4 subgroup for adjunctive cariprazine 1.5 mg/d (MADRS total score: -3.2, p = .0037; anhedonia subscale score: -1.9, p = .0066). Significant differences were seen for adjunctive cariprazine versus adjunctive placebo on several anhedonia subscale single items, including anhedonia item 8 for the 1.5 mg/d dose. LIMITATION: Post hoc analysis. CONCLUSION: In patients with MDD and moderate-to-severe anhedonia, adjunctive cariprazine improved symptoms of general depression and anhedonia, suggesting a potential benefit for patients with this clinically significant symptom.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".