Rates of response, euthymia and remission in two placebo‐controlled olanzapine trials for bipolar mania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinically meaningful recovery from acute mania may not be captured by conventionally reported response categorizations. We defined new and stringent criteria for remission in bipolar mania. Using a cohort of patients with acute mania randomized to treatment with either olanzapine or placebo, we contrasted remission rates to findings using previously reported but more lenient categorical outcome measures of response and euthymia. METHODS: We pooled and reanalyzed results through 3 weeks from two published randomized double-blind trials of olanzapine versus placebo for treating acute bipolar mania (1, 2). Response was previously defined as > or = 50% decrease from baseline to endpoint total Young Mania Rating Scale (3) (Y-MRS) scores, and euthymia as an endpoint total Y-MRS score of < or = 12. In this report, remission required an endpoint total Y-MRS score of < or = 7, and an endpoint total Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, (HAM-D21) (4) score of < or = 7 and an endpoint Clinical Global Impression Scale - Bipolar version, CGI-BP (5), overall severity score of < or = 2. RESULTS: Olanzapine treated subjects achieved statistically significantly greater rates of clinical response, euthymia and remission than those assigned to placebo, 55% versus 29.5%, 50% versus 27%, and 18% versus 7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine monotherapy resulted in discernable clinical improvements in mania in over 50% of subjects and just under 20% of subjects achieved a near complete resolution of manic and accompanying depressive symptoms after 3 weeks of treatment. Full remission is an important but potentially elusive goal during short-term management 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 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".