MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080856095 · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2014.12.012

Olanzapine/Fluoxetine Combination in Children and Adolescents With Bipolar I Depression: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2014· article· en· W2080856095 on OpenAlexaff
Holland C. Detke, Melissa P. DelBello, John Landry, Roland W. Usher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsYoung Mania Rating ScalePlaceboOlanzapineInternal medicineSomnolenceHamilton Rating Scale for DepressionPsychologyFluoxetineBipolar disorderRandomized controlled trialMedicineDepression (economics)ManiaAdverse effectPsychiatryMajor depressive disorderSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Lithium (medication)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) for the acute treatment of bipolar depression in children and adolescents. METHOD: Patients 10 to 17 years of age with bipolar I disorder (BP-I), depressed episode, baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total score ≥40, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≤15, and YMRS-item 1 ≤2 were randomized to OFC (6/25-12/50 mg/day olanzapine/fluoxetine; n = 170) or placebo (n = 85) for up to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. The primary efficacy measure was mean change in CDRS-R using mixed-model repeated-measures methodology. RESULTS: Baseline-to-week-8 least-squares mean change in CDRS-R total score was greater for OFC-treated patients than for placebo-treated patients (-28.4 versus -23.4, p = .003; effect size = .46), with between-group differences statistically significant at week 1 (p = .02) and all subsequent visits (all p < .01). Rates of and times to response and remission were statistically significantly greater for OFC- than for placebo-treated patients. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in the OFC group were weight gain, increased appetite, and somnolence. Mean weight gain at patient's endpoint was significantly greater for OFC- than for placebo-treated patients (4.4 kg versus 0.5 kg, p < .001). Treatment-emergent hyperlipidemia was very common among OFC-treated patients. Abnormal increases in hepatic analytes, prolactin, and corrected QT interval (QTc) were also common or very common but generally not clinically significant. CONCLUSION: In this study, OFC was superior to placebo, and has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the acute treatment of bipolar I depression in patients 10 to 17 years of age. Benefits should be weighed against the risk of adverse events, particularly weight gain and hyperlipidemia. Clinical trial registration information-A Study for Assessing Treatment of Patients Ages 10-17 with Bipolar Depression; http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00844857.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations134
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207