ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Adverse effects from antidepressant treatment: randomised controlled trial of 601 depressed individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Premature discontinuation of antidepressant drugs is a frequent clinical problem. Adverse effects are common, occur early on in treatment and are reported to be one of the main reasons for discontinuation of antidepressant treatment. Objectives To investigate the association between adverse effects occurring in the first 2 weeks of antidepressant treat-ment and discontinuation by 6 weeks as the outcome. To investigate the time profile of adverse effects induced by the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram and the nor-adrenaline reuptake inhibitor reboxetine over 12 weeks of treatment. Methods Six hundred and one depressed individuals were randomly allocated to either citalopram (20 mg daily) or reboxetine (4 mg twice daily). A modified version of the Toronto Side Effects Scale was used to measure 14 physical symptoms at baseline (medication free) and at 2, 6 and 12 weeks after randomisation. Results Individuals randomised to reboxetine reported a greater number of adverse effects and were more likely to stop treatment than individuals receiving citalopram. Dizziness (OR 1.83; 95 % CI 1.09, 3.09; p=0.02) and the total number of adverse effects (OR 1.12; 95 % CI 1.00, 1.25; p= 0.06) reported at 2 weeks were associated with discontinua-tion from overall antidepressant treatment by 6 weeks. Reports of adverse effects tended to reduce throughout the 12 weeks for both antidepressants. Conclusions The majority of adverse effects were not indi-vidually associated with discontinuation from antidepressant treatment. Reports of physical symptoms tended to reduce over time. The physical symptoms that did not reduce over time may represent symptoms of depression rather than antidepressant-induced adverse effects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".