Cannabidiol was ineffective for manic episode of bipolar affective disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pharmacological profile of cannabidiol (CBD) has several characteristics in common with drugs known to benefit bipolar affective disorder (BAD), leading to the hypothesis that CBD may have therapeutic properties in BAD. Therefore, the aim of the present report was to directly investigate for the first time the efficacy and safety of CBD in two patients with BAD. Both patients met DSM IV criteria for bipolar I disorder experiencing a manic episode without comorbid conditions. This was an inpatient study, and the efficacy, tolerability and side effects were assessed. Both patients received placebo for the initial 5 days and CBD from the 6th to 30th day (initial oral dose of 600 mg reaching 1200 mg/ day). From the 6th to the 20th day, the first patient (a 34-year-old woman) received adjunctive olanzapine (oral dose of 10-15 mg). On day 31, CBD treatment was discontinued and replaced by placebo for 5 days. The first patient showed symptoms improvement while on olanzapine plus CBD, but showed no additional improvement during CBD monotherapy. The second patient (a 36-year-old woman) had no symptoms improvement with any dose of CBD during the trial. Both patients tolerated CBD very well and no side-effects were reported. These preliminary data suggest that CBD may not be effective for the manic episode of BAD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".