A pilot study of loading versus titration of valproate in the treatment of acute mania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This double-blind pilot study compares the effectiveness and incidence of adverse effects of oral loading versus titration schedules of valproate in acute mania. METHOD: Consecutive new admissions for an acute manic episode were prescribed either an oral loading dose (20 mg/kg/day; n = 5; mean age = 33.4) or slower titration dose (10 mg/kg/day, n = 6. mean age = 30.6) of valproate for 7 days without other psychotropic agents. with the exception of benzodiazepines. Daily outcome measures included: serum valproic acid levels, the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Brief Psychiatry Rating Scale (BPRS), the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) and the Adverse Effect Rating Scale. RESULTS: The mean serum valproic acid levels were significantly higher in the loading group when compared with the titration group after 1 and 2 days following the initiation of treatment (p < 0.05). After 3 days of treatment there was a trend for the group that received the loading regimen to have slightly more improvement in YMRS scores compared with the titration group. Side-effects were minor for both treatments, however, a higher incidence of side-effects was reported in the titration group, with 50% of patients reporting sedation most likely because of increased use of benzodiazepines. CONCLUSION: This suggests that a loading dose of valproate is likely safe and may provide an earlier onset of antimanic effects in patients with bipolar disorder. Future studies with larger sample sizes are indicated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".