MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dose–response relationship of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors treatment‐emergent hypomania in depressive disorders

2001· article· en· W2054908052 on OpenAlexaff
Rajamannar Ramasubbu

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypomaniaParoxetineSertralineAntidepressantManiaBipolar disorderMajor depressive disorderBipolar II disorderPsychologyVortioxetinePsychiatryInternal medicineFluoxetineSerotonin reuptake inhibitorMajor depressive episodeDiscontinuationMedicineSerotoninLithium (medication)MoodAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The notion that antidepressant treatment-associated hypomania or mania being pharmacologically induced has been challenged. To determine whether selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) induced hypomania is secondary to medication effects, we examined the dose-response relationship of SSRI-induced hypomania in two patients with depressive disorder. METHOD: Case study. RESULT: Hypomanic symptoms emerged during treatment with sertraline at the dose of 300 mg per day in a 45-year-old male with major depression. Paroxetine treatment at the dose of 80 mg per day induced hypomania in a 37-year-old female with dysthymia and trichitillomania. These patients have no family or personal history of bipolar disorder. Hypomania resolved when sertraline was decreased to 200 mg per day and paroxetine to 40 mg per day. No hypomanic switch was observed during 18-24 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: In the absence of risk factors for manic switch, SSRI-induced hypomania may be dose-dependent medication effects.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations39
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207