ArticleJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2024
Is lack of goal-conflict-specific rhythmicity a biomarker for treatment resistance in generalised anxiety but not social anxiety or major depression?
Article in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hope for Neurotic Disorders: A Summary of New Zealand Research on the Development of Biomarkers and Novel Treatments.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnxiety and depression cause major detriment to the patient, family, and society - particularly in treatment-resistant (TR) cases, which are highly prevalent. TR prevalence may be due to current diagnoses being based not on biological measures but on symptom lists that suffer from clinical subjectivity, variation in symptom presentation, and comorbidity.
aimsGoal-conflict-specific rhythmicity (GCSR) measured using the Stop-Signal Task (SST) may provide the first neural biomarker for an anxiety process and disorder. This GCSR has been validated with selective drugs for anxiety. So, we proposed that GCSR could differ between TR and non-TR individuals and do so differently between those diagnoses normally sensitive to selective anxiolytics and those not.
methodsWe recorded electroencephalograms (EEG) from 20 TR participants (4 GAD, 5 SAD and 11 MDD) and 24 non-TR participants (4 GAD, 5 SAD and 15 Comorbid GAD/MDD (GMD)) while they performed the SST.
resultsThere was significant positive GCSR in all groups except the GAD-TR group. GAD-TR lacked GCSR in the low-frequency range. However, TR had little effect in SAD or MDD/GMD populations with apparent increases not decreases.
conclusionsOverall, these results suggest that GAD may occur in two forms: one resulting from excessive GCSR and so being drug sensitive, and the other resulting from some other mechanism and so being TR. In SAD and MDD groups, heightened GCSR could be a consequence rather than the cause, driven by mechanisms that are normally more sensitive to non-selective panicolytic antidepressants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.