Cognition and Its Association with Psychosocial and Occupational Functioning during Treatment with Escitalopram in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A CAN-BIND-1 Report: La Cognition Et Son Association Avec Le Fonctionnement Psychosocial Et Professionnel Durant Le Traitement Par Escitalopram Chez Des Patients Souffrant De Trouble Dépressif Majeur: Une Étude Can-Bind-1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives:Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with impairments in both cognition and functioning. However, whether cognitive deficits significantly contribute to impaired psychosocial and occupational functioning, independent of other depressive symptoms, is not well established. We examined the relationship between cognitive performance and functioning in depressed patients before and after antidepressant treatment using secondary data from the first Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression-1 study.Methods:Cognition was assessed at baseline in unmedicated, depressed participants with MDD (n = 207) using the Central Nervous System Vital Signs computerized battery, psychosocial functioning with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and occupational functioning with the Lam Employment Absence and Productivity Scale (LEAPS). Cognition (n = 181), SDS (n = 175), and LEAPS (n = 118) were reassessed after participants received 8 weeks of open-label escitalopram monotherapy. A series of linear regressions were conducted to determine (1) whether cognitive functioning was associated with psychosocial and occupational functioning prior to treatment, after adjusting for overall depressive symptom severity and (2) whether changes in cognitive functioning after an 8-week treatment phase were associated with changes in psychosocial and occupational functioning, after adjusting for changes in overall symptom severity.Results:Baseline global cognitive functioning, after adjusting for depression symptom severity and demographic variables, was associated with the SDS work/study subscale (β = −0.17; P = 0.03) and LEAPS productivity subscale (β = −0.17; P = 0.05), but not SDS total (β = 0.19; P = 0.12) or LEAPS total (β = 0.41; P = 0.17) scores. Although LEAPS and SDS scores showed significant improvements after 8 weeks of treatment (P < 0.001), there were no significant associations between changes in cognitive domain scores and functional improvements.Conclusion:Cognition was associated with occupational functioning at baseline, but changes in cognition were not associated with psychosocial or occupational functional improvements following escitalopram treatment. We recommend the use of more comprehensive functional assessments to determine the impact of cognitive change on functional outcomes in future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".