Conceptual and methodological issues in designing a randomized, controlled treatment trial for geriatric bipolar disorder: GERI‐BD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young RC, Schulberg HC, Gildengers AG, Sajatovic M, Mulsant BH, Gyulai L, Beyer J, Marangell L, Kunik M, Ten Have T, Bruce ML, Gur R, Marino P, Evans JD, Reynolds CF III, Alexopoulos GS. Conceptual and methodological issues in designing a randomized, controlled treatment trial for geriatric bipolar disorder: GERI‐BD. Bipolar Disord 2010: 12: 56–67. © 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Aim: This report considers the conceptual and methodological concerns confronting clinical investigators seeking to generate knowledge regarding the tolerability and benefits of pharmacotherapy in geriatric bipolar disorder (BD) patients. Method: There is continuing need for evidence‐based guidelines derived from randomized controlled trials that will enhance drug treatment of geriatric BD patients. Therefore, we present the complex conceptual and methodological choices encountered in designing a multisite clinical trial and the decisions reached by the investigators with the intention that study findings be pertinent to, and can facilitate, routine treatment decisions. Results: Guided by a literature review and input from peers, the tolerability and antimanic effects of lithium and valproate were judged to be the key mood stabilizers to investigate with regard to treating bipolar I disorder manic, mixed, and hypomanic states. The patient selection criteria are intended to generate a sample that not only experiences common treatment needs but also represents the variety of older patients seen in university‐based clinical settings. The clinical protocol guides titration of lithium and valproate to target serum concentrations, with lower levels allowed when necessitated by limited tolerability. The protocol emphasizes initial monotherapy. However, augmentation with risperidone is permitted after three weeks when indicated by operational criteria. Conclusions: A randomized, controlled trial that both investigates commonly prescribed mood stabilizers and maximizes patient participation can meaningfully address high‐priority clinical concerns directly relevant to the routine pharmacologic treatment of geriatric BD patients.
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 | 0.733 | 0.791 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".