MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Induction of mania and cycle acceleration in bipolar disorder: effect of different classes of antidepressant

2002· article· en· W2062967106 on OpenAlexaff
Russell T. Joffe, Glenda MacQueen, Michael Marriott, Janine Robb, Helen Bégin, L. Trevor Young

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManiaAntidepressantBipolar disorderDepression (economics)PsychologyBupropionPsychiatryInternal medicineMedicineMoodAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of different antidepressants on induction of mania and cycle acceleration, commonly accepted unwanted effects of antidepressant treatment for acute bipolar depression. There is, however, the suggestion that certain classes of antidepressants may be less likely than others to cause these unwanted effects. METHOD: We conducted a prospective, open, naturalistic, life charting study to assess the occurrence of onset of mania and cycle acceleration attributable to two antidepressant classes: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and bupropion. RESULTS: No difference was found between the two drug classes for either antidepressant-induced mania or cycle acceleration. Antidepressant-induced mania was much more likely to occur in bipolar I rather than bipolar II patients. The overall occurrence of induction of mania and cycle acceleration was low across antidepressant classes. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that there is probably no difference in the risk of antidepressant-induced mania or cycle acceleration across commonly used classes of antidepressants for the treatment of bipolar depression.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations78
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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