Effects of Asenapine in Bipolar I Patients Meeting Proxy Criteria for Moderate-to-Severe Mixed Major Depressive Episodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Depression is the predominant psychosocial and suicide burden in bipolar disorder, yet there is a paucity of evidence-based treatments for bipolar depression. METHODS: This post hoc subgroup analysis of data pooled from two 3-week, randomized, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled trials (December 2004-April 2006, N = 489 and November 2004-April 2006, N = 488) examined a subgroup of patients meeting criteria for moderate-to-severe mixed major depressive episodes, defined using DSM-IV-TR criteria for mixed episodes (mania and major depression simultaneously) with a baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥ 20. RESULTS: Decreases in MADRS scores (least squares mean [SE]), the a priori primary outcome, were significantly greater in the asenapine group than in the placebo group from baseline to day 7 (-11.02 [1.82] vs -4.78 [1.89]; P = .0195), day 21 (-14.03 [2.01] vs -7.43 [2.09]; P = .0264), and endpoint (-10.71 [1.76] vs -5.19 [1.98]; P = .039). Decreases in MADRS scores with asenapine were significantly greater than with olanzapine from baseline to day 7 (-6.26 [1.47]; P = .0436). Decreases in Young Mania Rating Scale mean total score were greater with asenapine than with placebo or olanzapine at all time points assessed. A significantly greater reduction from baseline to day 21 in the Short Form-36 mental component summary score was observed with asenapine, but not olanzapine, compared with placebo (16.57 vs 5.97; P = .0093). Asenapine was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide support for the potential efficacy of asenapine in mixed major depressive episodes; however, these data cannot be linearly extrapolated to nonmixed major depression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".