Analysis of reward behavior in patients with MDD and partial response to SSRI therapy treated with vortioxetine versus desvenlafaxine: Experience with the Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT) in the VIVRE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anhedonia is a hallmark symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD), associated with impairments in various aspects of reward. VIVRE is the first study in patients with MDD receiving antidepressant therapy to include longitudinal assessment of reward behavior using the Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT), a validated behavioral paradigm for the objective assessment of reward and effort-based decision-making in patients with MDD. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind study of vortioxetine (10 or 20 mg/day) versus desvenlafaxine (50 mg/day) in adults with MDD and partial response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor monotherapy. Motivation for reward based on the proportion of hard trial choices was assessed at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: There was no difference in the proportion of hard trial choices between the vortioxetine (n = 288) and desvenlafaxine (n = 300) treatment groups at baseline. Minimal change in parameters of reward motivation was seen over the 8-week treatment period in either group. The between-group difference in the proportion of hard trial choices at week 8 was not statistically significant (odds ratio: 0.97 [95 % CI: 0.82, 1.14]; P = 0.72). Similar results were obtained when controlling for reward probability, reward magnitude, trial number, and sex, or when limiting to the first 50 trials (excluding computer-selected trials). LIMITATIONS: Exploratory analyses evaluating the utility of the EEfRT in clinical populations. CONCLUSIONS: Experience from the VIVRE study suggests that further research is required to fully determine the clinical utility of the EEfRT for assessment of antidepressant treatment effects in patients with MDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04448431.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".