Improvement of cognitive function by escitalopram and paroxetine in patients with first-episode depressive disorder and its relationship with thyroid hormone levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe incidence of cognitive impairment in patients with depressive disorder is high， and the causes and mechanisms of which deserve more attention. It is usual that the thyroid hormone levels in patients with depressive disorder alter. Further research is needed to explore whether the cognitive function changes in patients with depressive disorder are related to thyroid hormone levels.ObjectiveTo explore the improvement of cognitive function in patients with first-episode depressive disorder after escitalopram and paroxetine treatment， and to analyse its correlation with thyroid hormone levels， so as to look for potential biomarkers of cognitive function change in patients with depressive disorder.MethodsFrom March 2021 to March 2022， 120 patients who met the diagnostic criteria of the International Classification of Diseases， tenth edition （ICD-10） for depression and were hospitalized at Shandong Mental Health Center were selected as the research objects. They were randomly divided into two groups by random number table method with 60 patients in each group. The two groups were treated with escitalopram （starting dose 5 mg/d） and paroxetine （starting dose 20 mg/d） for 6 weeks. Before and 6 weeks after the treatment， levels of thyroid stimulating hormone （TSH）， free thyroxine （FT4） and free triiodothyronine （FT3） were tested respectively. Depression degree and cognitive function level were assessed using the Hamilton Depression Scale-17 item （HAMD-17） and Montreal Cognitive Assessment （MoCA）， respectively. Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis was used to examine the correlation between the MoCA score difference before and after the treatment and the post-treatment level of thyroid hormone.ResultsBefore and 6 weeks after the treatment， the time effect of HAMD-17 total score in both groups was statistically significant （F=1 236.568， P<0.01）. Also， the time effect， group effect as well as interaction effect of time and group of MoCA total score in both groups were statistically significant （F=79.186， 6.026， 20.417， P<0.05 or 0.01）. The time effect， group effect as well as the interaction effect of time and group for FT3 level and FT4 level were statistically significant in both groups （F=75.973， 20.287， 0.961， 84.194， 0.142， 8.299， P<0.05 or 0.01）. According to the simple effect analysis. After the treatment， the MoCA total score in both groups was higher than that before treatment， while FT3 and FT4 levels were lower than those before treatment （F=15.864， 5.421， 8.524， 6.443， 7.628， 3.639， P<0.01）. After the 6-week treatment， the MoCA total score as well as FT3 and FT4 level differences in escitalopram and paroxetine groups were of statistical significance （t=5.841， -0.705， -2.349， P<0.05 or 0.01）. The MoCA score difference before and after treatment in paroxetine group was positively correlated with FT3 and FT4 levels after treatment （r=0.276， 0.382， P<0.05 or 0.01）.ConclusionBoth escitalopram and paroxetine can improve cognitive function in patients with first-episode depressive disorder. The improvement may be related to the changes in serum FT3 and FT4 levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".