Comparison of Rapid-Cycling and Non–Rapid-Cycling Bipolar I Manic Patients During Treatment With Olanzapine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rapid-cycling (RC) bipolar disorder patients experience high levels of morbidity, typically respond unsatisfactorily to available treatments, and, so, require additional studies of novel treatments. We report on the first controlled study comparing acute and continuous clinical outcomes in RC and non-RC manic patients treated with olanzapine. METHOD: We analyzed data pooled from 2 placebo-controlled, double-blind, 3- to 4-week trials of olanzapine in mania (N = 254), 1 with an open-label extension up to 1 year (N = 113) and controlled supplementation with lithium or fluoxetine as needed, to compare demographic, clinical, and outcome measures between RC and non-RC subgroups of 254 DSM-IV bipolar I manic subjects. RESULTS: RC (N = 90, 35%) versus non-RC subjects (N = 164, 65%) were younger at intake (p = .02), less often psychotic (p < .0001), and more likely to have familial bipolar disorder (p < .0001), abused substances (p = .01), more previous hospitalizations (p = .004), and many more illness episodes (p < .001). In initial blinded trial outcomes, relative responses (> or = 50% improvement of mania) to olanzapine/placebo were similar in RC and non-RC subjects, though early responses to olanzapine favored RC over non-RC subjects (p = .003), and long-term outcomes favored non-RC subjects (p = .05). Fewer RC subjects achieved strictly defined initial symptomatic remission (p = .014) within a year; RC subjects were more likely to experience recurrences (p = .002), especially of depressive illness (< .001), and had more rehospitalizations (p = .01) and suicide attempts (p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: RC bipolar I patients showed major initial differences and more rapid initial clinical changes, especially toward depression, with less favorable long-term outcomes than non-RC cases during treatment with olanzapine. Inclusion of RC bipolar disorder patients can complicate therapeutic trials, but these patients require further study for differential responsiveness to innovative treatments with methods of assessing clinical response that take their mood instability into account.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".