MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1794396397 · doi:10.1111/bdi.12006

A randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial evaluating the effect of intranasal insulin on neurocognitive function in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder

2012· article· en· W1794396397 on OpenAlexaff
Roger S. McIntyre, Joanna K. Soczynska, Hanna O. Woldeyohannes, Andrew Miranda, Anthony L. Vaccarino, Glenda MacQueen, Gary F. Lewis, Sidney H. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveBipolar disorderYoung Mania Rating ScaleManiaPsychologyBipolar I disorderRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryInternal medicineMedicineMoodCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive deficits are prevalent, persistent, and implicated as mediators of functional impairment in adults with bipolar disorder. Notwithstanding progress in the development of pharmacological treatments for various phases of bipolar disorder, no available treatment has been proven to be reliably efficacious in treating neurocognitive deficits. Emerging evidence indicates that insulin dysregulation may be pertinent to neurocognitive function. In keeping with this view, we tested the hypothesis that intranasal insulin administration would improve measures of neurocognitive performance in euthymic adults with bipolar disorder. METHODS: Sixty-two adults with bipolar I/II disorder (based on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0) were randomized to adjunctive intranasal insulin 40 IU q.i.d. (n = 34) or placebo (n = 28) for eight weeks. All subjects were prospectively verified to be euthymic on the basis of a total score of ≤ 3 on the seven-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-7) and ≤ 7 on the 11-item Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) for a minimum of 28 consecutive days. Neurocognitive function and outcome was assessed with a neurocognitive battery. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in mean age of the subjects {i.e., mean age 40 [standard deviation (SD) = 10.15] years in the insulin and 39 [SD = 10.41] in the placebo groups, respectively}. In the insulin group, n = 27 (79.4%) had bipolar I disorder, while n = 7 (21.6%) had bipolar II disorder. In the placebo group, n = 25 (89.3%) had bipolar I disorder, while n = 3 (10.7%) had bipolar II disorder. All subjects received concomitant medications; medications remained stable during study enrollment. A significant improvement versus placebo was noted with intranasal insulin therapy on executive function (i.e., Trail Making Test-Part B). Time effects were significant for most California Verbal Learning Test indices and the Process Dissociation Task-Habit Estimate, suggesting an improved performance from baseline to endpoint with no between-group differences. Intranasal insulin was well tolerated; no subject exhibited hypoglycemia or other safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive intranasal insulin administration significantly improved a single measure of executive function in bipolar disorder. We were unable to detect between-group differences on other neurocognitive measures, with improvement noted in both groups. Subject phenotyping on the basis of pre-existing neurocognitive deficits and/or genotype [e.g., apolipoprotein E (ApoE)] may possibly identify a more responsive subgroup.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations105
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207