Methodological Issues and Controversies in Clinical Trials with Child and Adolescent Patients with Bipolar Disorder: Report of a Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus among researchers, pharmaceutical industry representatives, federal regulatory agency staff, and family advocates on a template for clinical trials of acute mania/bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. METHOD: The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in collaboration with Best Practice, convened a group of experts from the key stakeholder communities (including adult psychiatrists with expertise in bipolar disorder) and assigned them to workgroups to examine core methodological issues surrounding the design of clinical trials and, ultimately, to generate a consensus statement encompassing: (1) inclusion/exclusion criteria, (2) investigator training needs and site selection, (3) assessment and outcome measures, (4) protocol design and ethical issues unique to trials involving children/adolescents, and (5) regulatory agency perspectives on these deliberations. RESULTS: Conference participants reached agreement on 18 broad methodological questions. Key points of consensus were to assign priority to placebo-controlled studies of acute manic episodes in children and adolescents aged 10-17 years, who may or may not be hospitalized, and who may or may not suffer from common comorbid psychiatric disorders; to require that specialist diagnostic "gatekeepers" screen youths' eligibility to participate in trials; to monitor interviewer and rater competency over the course of the trial using agreed upon standards; and to develop new tools for assessment, including scales to measure aggression/rage and cognitive function, while using the best available instruments (e.g., Young Mania Rating Scale) in the interim. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologically rigorous, large-scale clinical trials of treatment of acute mania are urgently needed to provide information regarding the safety and efficacy, in youth, of diverse agents with potential mood-stabilizing properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.808 | 0.770 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".