Olanzapine Versus Placebo in Acute Mania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of olanzapine in acute mania showed significant overall antimanic efficacy, based on reductions in mania ratings. Their subject-level data were pooled to increase statistical power to test for differences in treatment responses among 10 subgroup pairs of interest using generalized estimating equations methods. Similar drug/placebo superiority and responsiveness to olanzapine was found in men versus women, psychotic versus nonpsychotic subjects, and those presenting in mania versus mixed states, and responses were independent of onset age, current age, or prior illness based on episodes, hospitalizations, recent rapid cycling, lifetime substance use, or previous antipsychotic treatment. Olanzapine and placebo responses paralleled closely (r(s) = 0.73). Patients were relatively more responsive to olanzapine who were younger at illness onset, lacked prior substance abuse, and had not previously received antipsychotic treatment (efficacy ratios 1.5-1.7, all P < 0.01). These well-powered comparisons of subgroups of interest indicate broad efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".