MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073219967 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.5.3.89

The addition of olanzapine to valproate or lithium for acute manic or mixed bipolar episodes reduced manic symptoms

2002· letter· en· W2073219967 on OpenAlexaffabout
David M. Gardner

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium (medication)Young Mania Rating ScaleBipolar disorderManiaInternal medicineMedicineOlanzapineBipolar I disorderGastroenterologyWeb of sciencePediatricsPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Meta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tohen M, Chengappa KN, Suppes T, et al. Efficacy of olanzapine in combination with valproate or lithium in the treatment of mania in patients partially nonresponsive to valproate or lithium monotherapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry2002 Jan; 59 : 62 –9 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients with acute manic or mixed bipolar episodes, is a combination of olanzapine with valproate or lithium more effective than valproate or lithium alone? 6 week randomised {allocation concealed*}†, blinded {patients, clinicians, data collectors, and outcome assessors}†,*, placebo controlled trial. 33 centres in the US and 5 in Canada. 344 patients (mean age 41 y, 52% women) who had bipolar disorder, manic (48%) or mixed (52%) episodes with or without psychotic episodes; had a score ≥16 (mean score 22) on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at baseline; and had received treatment … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BGeneral%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BGen%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DTohen%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D59%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D62%26rft.epage%253D69%26rft.atitle%253DEfficacy%2Bof%2BOlanzapine%2Bin%2BCombination%2BWith%2BValproate%2Bor%2BLithium%2Bin%2Bthe%2BTreatment%2Bof%2BMania%2Bin%2BPatients%2BPartially%2BNonresponsive%2Bto%2BValproate%2Bor%2BLithium%2BMonotherapy%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchpsyc.59.1.62%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11779284%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpsyc.59.1.62&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11779284&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F5%2F3%2F89.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000173115800013&link_type=ISI

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207