Rigid Supersymmetric Theories in Curved Superspace

We present a uniform treatment of rigid supersymmetric field theories in a curved spacetime $\mathcal{M}$, focusing on four-dimensional theories with four supercharges. Our discussion is significantly simpler than earlier treatments, because we use classical background values of the auxiliary fields in the supergravity multiplet. We demonstrate our procedure using several examples. For $\mathcal{M}=AdS_4$ we reproduce the known results in the literature. A supersymmetric Lagrangian for $\mathcal{M}=\mathbb{S}^4$ exists, but unless the field theory is conformal, it is not reflection positive. We derive the Lagrangian for $\mathcal{M}=\mathbb{S}^3\times \mathbb{R}$ and note that the time direction $\mathbb{R}$ can be rotated to Euclidean signature and be compactified to $\S^1$ only when the theory has a continuous R-symmetry. The partition function on $\mathcal{M}=\mathbb{S}^3\times \S^1$ is independent of the parameters of the flat space theory and depends holomorphically on some complex background gauge fields. We also consider R-invariant $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories on $\mathbb{S}^3$ and clarify a few points about them.Comment: 26 pages, uses harvmac; v2 with added reference

N=2 supergravity and supercurrents

We address the problem of classifying all N=2 supercurrent multiplets in four space-time dimensions. For this purpose we consider the minimal formulation of N=2 Poincare supergravity with a tensor compensator, and derive its linearized action in terms of three N=2 off-shell multiplets: an unconstrained scalar superfield, a vector multiplet, and a tensor multiplet. Such an action was ruled out to exist in the past. Using the action constructed, one can derive other models for linearized N=2 supergravity by applying N=2 superfield duality transformations. The action depends parametrically on a constant non-vanishing real isotriplet g^{ij}=g^{ji} which originates as an expectation value of the tensor compensator. Upon reduction to N=1 superfields, we show that the model describes two dually equivalent formulations for the massless multiplet (1,3/2)+(3/2,2) depending on a choice of g^{ij}. In the case g^{11}=g^{22}=0, the action describes (i) new minimal N=1 supergravity; and (ii) the Fradkin-Vasiliev-de Wit-van Holten gravitino multiplet. In the case g^{12}=0, on the other hand, the action describes (i) old minimal N=1 supergravity; and (ii) the Ogievetsky-Sokatchev gravitino multiplet.Comment: 40 pages; v2: added references, some comments, new appendi

Psychotherapy or medication for depression? Using individual symptom meta-analyses to derive a Symptom-Oriented Therapy (SOrT) metric for a personalised psychiatry

Background: Antidepressant medication (ADM) and psychotherapy are effective treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD). It is unclear, however, if treatments differ in their effectiveness at the symptom level and whether symptom information can be utilised to inform treatment allocation. The present study synthesises comparative effectiveness information from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ADM versus psychotherapy for MDD at the symptom level and develops and tests the Symptom-Oriented Therapy (SOrT) metric for precision treatment allocation. Methods: First, we conducted systematic review and meta-analyses of RCTs comparing ADM and psychotherapy at the individual symptom level. We searched PubMed Medline, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, a database specific for psychotherapy RCTs, and looked for unpublished RCTs. Random-effects meta-analyses were applied on sum-scores and for individual symptoms for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) measures. Second, we computed the SOrT metric, which combines meta-analytic effect sizes with patients' symptom profiles. The SOrT metric was evaluated using data from the Munich Antidepressant Response Signature (MARS) study (n = 407) and the Emory Predictors of Remission in Depression to Individual and Combined Treatments (PReDICT) study (n = 234). Results: The systematic review identified 38 RCTs for qualitative inclusion, 27 and 19 for quantitative inclusion at the sum-score level, and 9 and 4 for quantitative inclusion on individual symptom level for the HAM-D and BDI, respectively. Neither meta-analytic strategy revealed significant differences in the effectiveness of ADM and psychotherapy across the two depression measures. The SOrT metric did not show meaningful associations with other clinical variables in the MARS sample, and there was no indication of utility of the metric for better treatment allocation from PReDICT data. Conclusions: This registered report showed no differences of ADM and psychotherapy for the treatment of MDD at sum-score and symptom levels. Symptom-based metrics such as the proposed SOrT metric do not inform allocation to these treatments, but predictive value of symptom information requires further testing for other treatment comparisons