Twelve-month prospective, multinational, observational study of factors associated with recovery from mania in bipolar disorder in patients treated with atypical antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Atypical antipsychotic agents constitute one therapeutic approach for bipolar disorder. Since disease course and outcome are variable, further studies are needed to complement limited data supportive of clinical decisions at treatment initiation. METHODS: This 12-month, prospective, observational study investigated factors associated with symptomatic remission (total YMRS score < or =12) and full clinical recovery (sustained reduction in CGI-BP-S overall score) in bipolar disorder during treatment with atypical antipsychotics (predominantly olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine; alone or in combination with a psychotropic such as lithium or valproate) in actual clinical practice. RESULTS: Amongst 872 enrolled and eligible patients, rates of symptomatic remission and full clinical recovery at 12 months were 93.0 and 78.5%, respectively. Of the baseline factors significantly (P< or =0.05) associated with symptomatic remission, the following categories were positively associated with a higher chance of symptomatic remission: Caucasian ethnicity; higher CGI-BP-S scores; family-dependent living; a previous manic episode; 1, 2 or > or =5 social activities; no work impairment; and being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with life. Outpatient treatment and historically longer periods of mania were significantly positively associated with full clinical recovery. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical status may also be associated with longer-term remission and recovery, factors relating to social functioning and quality of life are easily assessed and potentially modifiable. Such knowledge may aid physicians' clinical decisions regarding patients with bipolar mania treated with atypical antipsychotics.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".