Oxcarbazepine versus sodium valproate in treatment of acute mania: a double-blind randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxcarbazepine as an anticonvulsant has been suggested as an effective drug in affective disorders. The present study was designed to compare the efficacy of oxcarbazepine and sodium valproate in the treatment of acute mania in the Iranian population. In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial, hospitalized bipolar patients in the acute manic phase who were admitted to Ibn-e-Sina psychiatric hospital in Mashhad city (north-eastern part of Iran) were enrolled. The diagnosis was confirmed using Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR. Patients were then randomly allocated into two groups taking oxcarbazepine (900-2400 mg/day) and sodium valproate (about 20 mg/kg/day) for 6 weeks. Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI-S), and adverse effects of drugs were assessed at baseline and after 3 and 6 weeks. Mania symptoms based on mean scores of YMRS and CGI-S significantly decreased from baseline to endpoint in both treatments (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of reduction of symptoms during times (P = 0.715 and P = 0.446, respectively) and adverse events (P > 0.05). This study confirmed the previous findings that indicate the efficacy of oxcarbazepine as same as sodium valproate. Moreover, its adverse effects resemble sodium valproate in the treatment of acutely manic patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".