A randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial evaluating the effect of intranasal insulin on neurocognitive function in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".