MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046148656 · doi:10.4088/pcc.11r01174

Olanzapine-Induced Weight Gain in Patients With Bipolar I Disorder

2011· article· en· W2046148656 on OpenAlexaff
Mina G. Nashed, Maria Restivo, Valerie H. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS Disorders · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlanzapineWeight gainBipolar disorderManiaPlaceboSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Internal medicineMedicineAntipsychoticBipolar I disorderWeight changePsychiatryPsychologyWeight lossLithium (medication)Body weightObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The weight impact produced by the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine has been explored in meta-analyses focusing on patients with schizophrenia. However, outcomes identified for schizophrenia patients cannot always be generalized to patients with bipolar disorder. This study aims to quantitatively estimate the impact of olanzapine on the weight of patients with bipolar disorder. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline, and PsycINFO were searched using the keywords olanzapine AND (bipolar OR acute mania) in conjunction with (weight gain OR weight increase) (last search: October 2010, with no restrictions on dates of publication). English language was used as a restriction. STUDY SELECTION: The search identified 110 articles for review. The inclusion criteria for the chosen studies were a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, the presence of an olanzapine monotherapy group, a comparator placebo or monotherapy group, and mean weight gain and/or incidences of weight gain data. This process identified 13 studies for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome measure was the mean weight change between olanzapine monotherapy and comparator monotherapy, reported in kilograms. Standard deviation was extracted directly from studies when possible and imputed for 3 studies. The secondary outcome measure was the reported incidences of ≥ 7% weight gain. DATA SYNTHESIS: The mean difference in weight gain was calculated for the continuous data of the primary outcome. Olanzapine monotherapy was associated with more weight gain when compared to placebo (mean difference = 2.10 kg; 95% CI, 1.16-3.05; P < .001) and other bipolar monotherapy (mean difference = 1.34 kg; 95% CI, 0.95-1.72; P < .001). Odds ratio analysis of the dichotomous secondary outcome also showed more weight gain with olanzapine monotherapy compared to placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 10.12; 95% CI, 1.93-53.14; P = .006) and other bipolar monotherapy (OR = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.27-3.44; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Currently available data suggest that olanzapine is associated with significant weight gain in bipolar patients. Issues related to side effect profiles and their impact on treatment compliance and physical health outcomes need to be considered when selecting pharmacotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.012
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS DisordersSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207