TULIP study: Trail of Lurasidone in bipolar disorder in Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined usefulness and efficiency of Lurasidone in appraisal with the placebo as for the treatment of Bipolar Disorders. METHODS: Seven treatment centers in Pakistan were selected for the purpose of starting a six week-long control trial (randomized and double-blind placebo). 76 subjects, already diagnosed with Bipolar I or II based on DSM 5 diagnosis, were selected after randomization. Patients were allocated in one of the two groups. Primary efficacy of the drug was measured using Young Mania Rating Scale. Positive response of the drug was defined as 50% reduction in symptoms from the baseline/13 point less than the baseline score on Young Mania Rating Scale. Efficacy and safety of the drug was assessed using variety of markers such as administering extra-pyramidal symptoms rating scale, adverse side effects reported, electrocardiograms, body weight, vital signs changes, and laboratory investigations. RESULTS: Lurasidone treated patients showed a better response to the drug (66%), in comparison with the placebo treated patients (42%). LIMITATIONS: Study was conducted on small scale due to complexity. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with Lurasidone showed reduction in bipolar symptoms and tolerate the drug well.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".