Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the current efficacy and safety evidence for the use of intramuscular olanzapine in the management of acute agitation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed (all to March 2004) were searched for full-text, English-language publications in humans. Search terms included olanzapine, psychosis, agitation, psychiatric emergency, and intramuscular. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Prospective, randomized, controlled trials that evaluated efficacy or safety endpoints of intramuscular olanzapine in the management of acute agitation were included. All studies were evaluated independently by both authors. For clinical outcomes (efficacy, safety), the definitions as specified by each study were used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four prospective trials were included in this review. Intramuscular olanzapine is comparable to haloperidol or lorazepam monotherapy in managing acute agitation associated with schizophrenia and dementia. Intramuscular olanzapine is superior to lorazepam monotherapy in the management of agitation associated with bipolar affective disorder. Preliminary evidence demonstrates that intramuscular olanzapine is associated with fewer adverse movement disorders than monotherapy with intramuscular haloperidol. Interpretation of published evidence is limited by confounding factors of comparator regimens and the patient populations studied. CONCLUSIONS: Additional studies comparing intramuscular olanzapine with combination antipsychotic/benzodiazepine therapy in more severely ill patients and patients with concomitant medical illnesses are needed to determine the most effective dosing regimen, use of adjunctive medications, and to obtain a comprehensive safety profile.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".