MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W102820804 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0249

Antidepressants in bipolar depression: when less is more

2002· article· en· W102820804 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Martina Růžičková, Martin Alda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenlafaxineBipolar disorderLamotriginePsychiatryCitalopramPsychologyLithium (medication)ManiaDivalproexCarbamazepineDepression (economics)BupropionAntidepressantTricyclic antidepressantTricyclicBipolar II disorderMajor depressive episodeMedicineMoodEpilepsyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 54-year-old woman with bipolar disorder was referred for a consultation for refractory depression. She has a family history of bipolar disorder. The initial course of her illness is described as clearly episodic, with full recovery between minor depressive and hypomanic episodes that she had been experiencing since her teens. At the age of 26, she developed postpartum depression and was treated with a tricyclic antidepressant. Later, after a manic episode, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a combination of lithium (plasma levels 0.7–0.9 mmol/L) and various antidepressants (i.e., all available selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, bupropion, doxepine, amitriptyline and venlafaxine). In addition, she had trials of carbamazepine, sodium divalproex, lamotrigine and several neuroleptics. Her course of illness gradually became more chronic. For the last 10 years, she has been mostly depressed with intermittent improvements. At the time of consultation, she was severely depressed, crying, with poor concentration and hypnagogic hallucinations; her medications were lithium carbonate, citalopram, lorazepam, L-THYROXINE AND ESTRADIOL.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207