A systematic review of the evidence on the treatment of rapid cycling bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rapid cycling is associated with longer illness duration and greater illness severity in bipolar disorder. The aim of the present study was to review the existing published randomized trials investigating the effect of treatment on patients with rapid cycling bipolar disorder. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was conducted using combinations of the following key words: bipolar and rapid or rapid-cycling or rapid cycling and randomized. The search was conducted through July 16, 2011, and no conference proceedings were included. RESULTS: The search returned 206 papers and ultimately 25 papers were selected for review. Only six randomized, controlled trials specifically designed to study a rapid cycling population were found. Most data were derived from post hoc analyses of trials that had included rapid cyclers. The literature suggested that: (i) rapid cycling patients perform worse in the follow-up period; (ii) lithium and anticonvulsants have comparable efficacies; (iii) there is inconclusive evidence on the comparative acute or prophylactic efficacy of the combination of anticonvulsants versus anticonvulsant monotherapy; (iv) aripiprazole, olanzapine, and quetiapine are effective against acute bipolar episodes; (v) olanzapine and quetiapine appear to be equally effective to anticonvulsants during acute treatment; (vi) aripiprazole and olanzapine appear promising for the maintenance of response of rapid cyclers; and (vii) there might be an association between antidepressant use and the presence of rapid cycling. CONCLUSION: The literature examining the pharmacological treatment of rapid cycling is still sparse and therefore there is no clear consensus with respect to its optimal pharmacological management. Clinical trials specifically studying rapid cycling are needed in order to unravel the appropriate management of rapid cycling bipolar disorder.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".