Valpromide increases amplitude of heart rate circadian rhythm in remitted bipolar and unipolar disorders.A placebo-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate for the effects of valpromide on heart rate circadian rhythm in remitted recurrent unipolar and bipolar disorders (DSM-III-R). It consisted of a comparative, randomized, double-blind, repeated cross-over study of valpromide versus placebo over four four-week periods. The primary evaluation criteria was heart rate (HR). Secondary criteria comprised motor activity (MA) and the Bech and Rafaelsen mania assessment scale, Horne and Ostberg questionnaire, Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale, Spiegel questionnaire, a sleep diary, and Clinical Global Impression. Fifteen patients were included, giving 60 one-month periods (30 valpromide periods and 30 placebo periods). Cosinor analysis of HR and MA data revealed a difference in amplitude (P = 0.037, analysis of variance, one-tailed test). The clinical sleep study shows that the duration of sleep was greater with valpromide than with placebo (P = 0.007, one-tailed test). Similarly, evaluation of the quality of sleep by patients themselves showed valpromide to be superior to placebo (P = 0.045, one-tailed test). The results of analysis of the Spiegel questionnaire also confirm the superiority of valpromide over placebo. Safety and compliance were comparable for the active drug and the placebo. In conclusion, the relatively small sample size requires cautious interpretation of this study. Nevertheless, these initial results show a definite effect of valpromide on a biological rhythm that leads one to suppose that it may be effective through a 'synchronizing' effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".