MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159480688 · doi:10.1517/14656566.2012.683174

A review of published evidence reporting on the efficacy and pharmacology of lurasidone

2012· review· en· W2159480688 on OpenAlexaff
Roger S. McIntyre, Mohammad Alsuwaidan, Diane McIntosh, Alissa M. Powell, Jeanette M. Jerrell

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLurasidoneMedicinePharmacologyClinical pharmacologyIntensive care medicineAntipsychoticPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Lurasidone is a benzisothiazol derivative, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the acute treatment of adults with schizophrenia. Lurasidone's binding affinities are highest for the 5-HT(2A), 5-HT(7), and D(2) receptors; with lower and similar binding affinities for the norepinephrine α(2C) and 5-HT(2C) receptor subtypes. It has demonstrated efficacy in fixed-dose studies across a variable dose range (i.e., 40 - 160 mg), with a recommended starting dose of 40 mg and a maximum recommended dose of 80 mg. Lurasidone's preclinical profile is predictive not only of efficacy against psychotic and negative symptoms but also of affective symptomatology and cognitive deficits. Controlled trials are currently underway to evaluate lurasidone's efficacy in bipolar depression as well as its procognitive effects in individuals with schizophrenia. Lurasidone is administered once a day with ≥ 350 calories of food, regardless of fat content. Lurasidone is not known to adversely affect body composition, anthropometrics, metabolic and/or electrocardiographic parameters. Although prolactin elevation might be observed, prolactin-related adverse events are rarely reported. AREAS COVERED: This paper presents the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of lurasidone, and discusses its efficacy, safety and tolerability data. EXPERT OPINION: Lurasidone's simplicity of use and favorable metabolic profile are distinct advantages relative to several other agents (e.g., olanzapine). Outcomes in cognitive data analyses are awaited to determine if there is a key differentiator between lurasidone and other atypical agents with respect to efficacy. Moreover, lurasidone's efficacy in bipolar depression is awaited to determine whether this agent can be considered as a treatment alternative for depressive symptoms in adults with 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on PharmacotherapySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207