MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080066343 · doi:10.1586/14737175.4.3.363

Lamotrigine for bipolar disorder: translating research into clinical practice

2004· review· en· W2080066343 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Fung, Hiram Mok, Lakshmi N. Yatham

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamotrigineBipolar disorderTolerabilityManiaRashAnticonvulsantMedicineTreatment of bipolar disorderLithium (medication)MoodPsychiatryDrugPsychologyAdverse effectEpilepsyPharmacologyDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lamotrigine (Lamictal, GlaxoSmithKline) is a recently developed anticonvulsant which has been investigated for efficacy in bipolar disorder. Increasing evidence indicates that it may have a different therapeutic profile than more established first-line mood stabilizers such as lithium and valproate. In particular, evidence from well-designed trials suggests efficacy for acute management and prophylaxis of bipolar depression but not mania. However, clinically relevant drug interactions and side effects can occur with lamotrigine, including benign to serious rash. The objectives of this drug profile are to review the basic chemical and pharmacological characteristics of lamotrigine, critically examine the growing body of research literature on its clinical use in the treatment of bipolar disorder, and review the safety and tolerability of lamotrigine as well as drug interactions relevant to clinical practice. Practical recommendations regarding titration and the management of rash are offered.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207