A 6‐month randomized open‐label comparison of continuation of oral atypical antipsychotic therapy or switch to long acting injectable risperidone in patients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of long-acting injectable risperidone (LAI-ris) add-on in bipolar patients. METHOD: A 6-month, open-label, randomized, pilot trial enrolled 49 bipolar out-patients who were taking a mood stabilizer and an atypical antipsychotic (AAP). Patients were maintained on a mood stabilizer and were randomized to continuation of their current AAP or switched to LAI-ris treatment. Safety outcomes included adverse events and changes in vital signs, laboratory tests and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Effectiveness measures included Clinical Global Impression-Severity, scales assessing mania, depression, anxiety, resource utilization, quality of life, subject satisfaction with treatment, and time to intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-three subjects were randomized to LAI-ris and 26 to oral AAP. There were no significant differences between the groups in adverse events, EPS change scores, weight or other safety measures. LAI-ris group had significant reductions in symptoms as measured by changes in Clinical Global Impression-Severity scores and Young Mania Rating Scale at endpoint relative to baseline and oral AAP group had reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores relative to baseline but no significant differences were noted between the groups on any of the efficacy measures. CONCLUSION: LAI-ris demonstrated similar effectiveness, safety and tolerability compared to oral AAP in this 6 month pilot trial.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".