cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1491937
Using surveys, cognitive tests and brain imaging, researchers have identified a type of depression that affects about a quarter of patients. The goal is to diagnose and treat the condition more precisely.
Almost sounds like ADHD, which can be misdiagnosed as depression/anxiety OR can lead to those two things due to such cognitive dysfunctions and emotional dysregulation. It’s interesting they mention guanfacine too, as I’ve heard that can be used to help with ADHD.
I was thinking literally the same thing. I wonder how these patients would respond to stimulant medication?
Or even non-stimulants like Atomoxetine (Strattera) that are known to be effective for ADHD. Could even try more experimental ones if you have money and a license to do whatever you want medically.
I just got put on Strattera (bipolar 2 and adhd) and i gotta say it’s been working pretty good for me
When I get my diagnosis it’s the first meds I’m trying, so hopefully it works out for me too.
I would be curious to know more about the age of the participants in the sample and if they cross assessed for other cognitive issues before this study began. 1000 people is statistically pretty small, and there can be many other factors contributing to depressive presentation, particularly if there is cognitive decline already occurring due to issues such as MCI or an (as yet) non-diagnosed dementia of some type. Major depression is commonly present in patients with brain illness, which can further complicate and delay correct treatment and diagnosis for both conditions.
1000 is not small at all and with a properly designed study it’s more than enough for statistical significance
I was thinking of the sample in relation to the population being studied. There are reportedly over 21 million people in the US diagnosed with depression. 1000 people is representative of less than 0.005% of that group.
Yes, I’m aware. Sample sizes to get a 95% confidence interval are significantly smaller in most cases than the average person thinks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination and the section on required sample size for hypotheses tests. There’s even sample size calculators online you can find that’ll spit this number for a 95% CI out for you. Personally I think given that information, it’s pretty unlikely the author made that error in a peer reviewed paper where reviewers are certainly aware as well
Just wait until people hear about all the medical studies with sample size goals of twelve, considered an adequate sample size for medical procedure studies and medical device studies.
