Evaluation of cariprazine in the treatment of bipolar I and II depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This double-blind placebo-controlled, fixed/flexible-dose phase 2 trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cariprazine vs. placebo for depressive episodes associated with bipolar I or II disorder. Primary endpoint was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores (baseline to week 8), and secondary endpoint was mean Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score (week 8). Patients were randomized (N = 233) 1:1:1 to placebo, 'low-dose' 0.25-0.5 mg/day or 'high-dose' 1.5-3.0 mg/day cariprazine. Adverse events, laboratory results, vital signs, extrapyramidal symptoms, and suicide risk were monitored. Neither cariprazine group significantly separated from placebo in primary (mixed-effect model repeated measures MADRS least-squares mean differences: low-dose = -0.7, P = 0.7408; high-dose = 0.0, P = 0.9961) or secondary efficacy measures. No new safety signals with cariprazine were observed and common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥5% of cariprazine patients and twice the rate of placebo) included insomnia, akathisia, dry mouth, nausea, weight increased, diarrhea, restlessness, vomiting, musculoskeletal stiffness, migraine, and cough. Metabolic and weight changes were generally similar for cariprazine and placebo. Factors that may have affected the outcome of the trial were identified, which helped to inform the design and conduct of subsequent phase 2b/3 clinical trials of cariprazine in bipolar depression.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".