[argsv]

The two mentioned in the article met the FDA definition of remission. It doesn’t say, how many improved in general. This is important specifically since the sample size of the trial is small.

[mlyle]

I agree both endpoints are interesting-- but arguably remission is more important of an outcome measure than improvement.

[bigfudge]

But remission is defined by the same measure. It’s just an arbitrary threshold on the HDRS.

[mlyle]

Sure. And improvement is doubtlessly confounded more by the placebo effect. Still, both are interestink.

[KarlKemp]

It's the important & useful of the two endpoints they measured. Anything will have a positive effect on depression if it comes with a lot of high-tech vodoo and people in lab coats. Only it won't last and it will the "yeah, I guess I'm feeling better"-level of improvement.

[eru]

> Only it won't last and it will the "yeah, I guess I'm feeling better"-level of improvement.

Who says it won't last? Most depressions actually do get better by themselves.

How do you think humanity has survived so far?

(Most, but not all. And even if it eventually gets better without meds, there was still a lot of suffering.)

[lazyasciiart]

It's quite possible humanity has survived because most people never get depressed. You need to be quite clear about definitions to have a meaningful conversation on this.

[webinvest]

Unfortunately your genes don’t care about whether you’re happy or not beyond your gene’s needs for survival and reproduction.

[eru]

Yes. And given the prevalence of continued prevalence of depression, there might be some evolutionary benefit for the genes that also cause depression.

No clue whether it's the depression itself, or whether that's just a side-effect of something else that's useful.

[eru]

Maybe. So please ignore the part where I speculate about evolution, if you want to.

Empirically, most clinical depressions get better by themselves today.

Similarly, most alcoholics improve by themselves.

(Of course, effective treatment is still useful!)