Risperidone Versus Risperidone Plus Sodium Valproate for Treatment of Bipolar Disorders: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical-Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of risperidone monotherapy with risperidone plus valproate in bipolar I disorder, manic phase. Some studies showed the efficacy of risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar disorder, so we examined this effectiveness in this clinical-trial study. METHOD: This 7-week, randomized, single-blind study included 48 bipolar I inpatients manic phase without psychotic features divided in risperidone group (n = 23) and risperidone plus sodium valproate group (n = 25). According to clinical symptoms, 3 categories: complete remission, partial remission and no remission were mentioned in weekly follow-up. Remission rate compared with survival analysis. RESULTS: The results showed a significant difference in remission rate between risperidone monotherapy and risperidone plus sodium valproate at the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd week (p = 0.012, 0.023, 0.027 respectively), It means the remission rate in risperidone plus valproate group was higher in the first three weeks, but at the end of the seventh week, the difference was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the development of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone can be effective and well tolerated in both acute manic episodes of bipolar mood disorders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".