MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of antimanic treatments in mixed states

2012· review· en· W1926887439 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYoung Mania Rating ScaleBipolar disorderManiaDivalproexPsychologyMood stabilizerPsychiatryBipolar I disorderAtypical antipsychoticMoodRating scaleClinical psychologyAntipsychoticSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Developmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy of pharmacological agents in bipolar mixed states. METHODS: We conducted a PubMed search of all English-language articles involving Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agents for manic/mixed states in adults with bipolar I disorder. We also included names of agents established as efficacious in acute mania/mixed states that have not received FDA approval for bipolar disorder. Bibliographies from relevant articles were also searched. The efficacy of each agent in the mixed state subpopulation was reviewed, as evidenced by change from baseline on total scores of mania [e.g., Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS)] and depression [e.g., Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)] measures. RESULTS: No available study is dedicated exclusively to the evaluation of mixed state populations. Although key inclusion and exclusion criteria are similar across treatment studies, mixed states have been variably defined and measured. The use of conventional manic and depressive metrics in bipolar mixed states perpetuates the unproven notion that mixed states are the consequence of coexisting depression and mania. Notwithstanding the methodological limitations, there are numerically more studies that exist for atypical antipsychotic agents than for any other class. On the basis of symptomatic improvement, recommendations for and/or strong admonishments against any established antimanic agents (e.g., lithium) cannot be made. An emergent signal supports combination treatment strategies (e.g., atypical antipsychotic plus divalproex) over mood stabilizer monotherapy (e.g., divalproex). Available evidence does not empirically support the hypothesis that conventional antipsychotics engender and/or amplify depressive symptoms in bipolar mixed states. CONCLUSIONS: All proven antimanic agents (including lithium), can be recommended in the treatment of mixed/dysphoric states. The totality of evidence with attention paid to the therapeutic index of each agent would suggest that atypical antipsychotics and divalproex be considered as first-line treatment, with lithium and carbamazepine as second-line. Most individuals will require combination therapy for the treatment of mixed states; variable combinations of atypical antipsychotics and conventional mood stabilizers have the most replicated evidence.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.291 · 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