Aripiprazole monotherapy in acute mania: 12-week randomised placebo- and haloperidol-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Well-tolerated and effective therapies for bipolar mania are required. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole as acute and maintenance of effect therapy in patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing manic or mixed episodes. METHOD: Patients were randomised to double-blind aripiprazole (15 or 30 mg/day; n=167), placebo (n=153) or haloperidol (5-15 mg/day, n=165) for 3 weeks (trial registration NCT00097266). Aripiprazole- and haloperidol-treated patients remained on masked treatment for 9 additional weeks. RESULTS: Mean change in Young Mania Rating Scale Total score (primary end-point) at week 3 was significantly greater with aripiprazole (-12.0; P<0.05) and haloperidol (-12.8; P<0.01) than with placebo (-9.7). Improvements were maintained to week 12 for aripiprazole (-17.2) and haloperidol (-17.8). Aripiprazole was well tolerated. Extrapyramidal adverse events were more frequent with haloperidol than aripiprazole (53.3% v. 23.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical improvements with aripiprazole were sustained to week 12. Aripiprazole was generally well tolerated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".