VOL 49: APRIL • AVRIL 2003 Canadian Family Physician • Le Médecin de famille canadien 449 CME What to do if an initial antidepressant fails?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To provide family physicians with practical ways of managing depressed patients responding insufficiently to initial antidepressant treatment. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE A search of MEDLINE and relevant bibliographies showed most studies could be categorized as level III evidence. Few well controlled studies (eg, level I evidence) specify treatment of next choice in rigorously defined treatment-refractory depression (TRD). MAIN MESSAGE Failure to achieve and sustain full symptom remission affects relatively few treated depressed patients. Most chronically depressed people are not absolutely resistant but are relatively resistant to treatment; they fail to achieve the goals of treatment because of improper diagnosis or insufficient treatment application. The literature on TRD has largely focused on medication strategies; fewer studies investigated psychosocial approaches. The best established augmentation strategies are lithium salts and triidothyronine (T3). Combination antidepressants have become clinical psychiatrists ’ preferred treatment, despite limited evidence. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) remains a feasible option for TRD, but response rates are poor among people with TRD. High relapse rates after ECT remain a serious and common clinical
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".