Is There a Real Difference Between the First Onset of Efficacy for Atypical Antipsychotic Monotherapies in Acute Bipolar Mania?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basson make an important point of clarification regarding the onset of efficacy for atypical antipsychotics in patients with acute mania.Although the data from placebo-controlled trials indicate that there were significant mean reductions in measures of manic symptoms from placebo at day 2 in patients receiving ziprasidone, at day 3 in patients receiving risperidone (in 1 trial), and at day 4 in patients receiving aripiprazole, these data should not be construed to imply differences in onset of efficacy.They do indeed represent the timepoints at which improvement was first assessed following baseline evaluations prior to randomization in these trials.To my knowledge, there is only 1 head-to-head comparison trial of atypical antipsychotic monotherapies in patients with acute bipolar mania, a trial comparing risperidone and olanzapine. 1 In that trial, no significant differences in onset of efficacy were detected.Dr. Treuer and Mr. Basson's comments regarding possible differences in sensitivity between rating scales used are also potentially relevant.However, the Mania Rating Scale is derived from the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, Change Version (SADS-C), and was the primary outcome measure in several of the trials they referred to, not the overall SADS-C.I thank them for emphasizing these methodological differences in trial design.
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 | 0.027 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".