Does lithium reduce acute suicidal ideation and behavior? A protocol for a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of lithium plus Treatment As Usual (TAU) in patients with suicidal major depressive episode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lithium has proven suicide preventing effects in the long-term treatment of patients with affective disorders. Clinical evidence from case reports indicate that this effect may occur early on at the beginning of lithium treatment. The impact of lithium treatment on acute suicidal thoughts and/or behavior has not been systematically studied in a controlled trial. The primary objective of this confirmatory study is to determine the association between lithium therapy and acute suicidal ideation and/or suicidal behavior in inpatients with a major depressive episode (MDE, unipolar and bipolar disorder according to DSM IV criteria). The specific aim is to test the hypothesis that lithium plus treatment as usual (TAU), compared to placebo plus TAU, results in a significantly greater decrease in suicidal ideation and/or behavior over 5 weeks in inpatients with MDE. METHODS/DESIGN: We initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Patients with the diagnosis of a moderate to severe depressive episode and suicidal thoughts and/or suicidal behavior measured with the Sheehan-Suicidality-Tracking Scale (S-STS) will be randomly allocated to add lithium or placebo to their treatment as usual. Change in the clinician administered S-STS from the initial to the final visit will be the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need to identify treatments that will acutely decrease suicidal ideation and/or suicidal behavior. The results of this study will demonstrate whether lithium reduces suicidal ideation and behavior within the first 5 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02039479.
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 | 0.033 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".