MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corrigendum

2008· erratum· en· W4247055419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2008
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuetiapineTolerabilityPlaceboLithium (medication)Quetiapine FumarateBipolar disorderPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicineAdverse effectAtypical antipsychoticSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AntipsychoticAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Volume 10, Supplement 1, February 2008, this Abstract was omitted from the Poster Session. The correct citation for the Abstract is Bipolar Disord 2008; 10 (Suppl. 1). We apologize for this error. A DOUBLE‐BLIND, PLACEBO‐CONTROLLED STUDY WITH ACUTE AND CONTINUATION PHASE OF QUETIAPINE AND LITHIUM IN ADULTS WITH BIPOLAR DEPRESSION (EMBOLDEN I) AH Young a , A Carlsson b , B Olausson b , B Paulsson b and M Brecher c a Department of Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, b AstraZeneca, Södertälje, Sweden, c AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, DE, USA Background and aims: Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy for major depressive episodes in bipolar disorder during an acute 8‐week period and up to 52‐week continuation phase. Methods: A total of 802 patients (499 bipolar I, 303 bipolar II) were randomized to quetiapine 300 mg/day (n = 265), quetiapine 600 mg/day (n = 268), lithium 600 mg/day (n = 136), or placebo (n = 133) for 8 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to 8 weeks in MADRS total score. After 8 weeks, patients with MADRS ≤ 12 and YMRS ≤ 12 entered a 26–52‐week continuation phase of quetiapine (300 mg/day or 600 mg/day) or placebo. Patients on lithium received 300 mg/day of quetiapine (results of continuation phase not included here and to be presented separately). Results: LSM MADRS score change at 8 weeks was −15.36 (quetiapine 300 mg/day), −16.10 (quetiapine 600 mg/day), −13.60 (lithium), and −11.81 (placebo; p < 0.001 for both quetiapine doses, p = 0.123 for lithium, versus placebo; LOCF ANCOVA). Quetiapine (both doses)‐treated, but not lithium‐treated, patients showed significantly greater improvements (p ≤ 0.05) in MADRS response and remission rates, HAM‐D, CGI‐BP‐S, CGI‐BP‐change, and HAM‐A at Week 8 versus placebo; MADRS item 10 (suicidal thoughts) improved with quetiapine 600 mg/day versus placebo (p = 0.013). Most common adverse events considered drug‐related included somnolence, dry mouth, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and nausea with lithium. Conclusions: Quetiapine (300 mg/day or 600 mg/day) was more effective than placebo for the treatment of acute depressive episodes in bipolar I and bipolar II disorder. Quetiapine treatment 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207