Prospective, comparative, pilot study of maintenance treatment in comorbid bipolar disorders with post-traumatic stress disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited real-world evidence that evaluates the impact of monotherapy vs. combination therapy as a maintenance treatment in comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in bipolar disorder (BD). Our aim was to compare lithium vs. lithium plus quetiapine in maintenance treatment in a sample of comorbid BD with PTSD. An exploratory, comparative pilot study over a 28-week period in 34 comorbid BD with PTSD patients was performed to compare monotherapy (n = 18) vs. combination therapy (n = 16) during maintenance treatment. The primary outcome was the time to event of recurrence of any mood episode. The secondary outcomes were regarding change from the baseline to endpoint in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). A Cox regression, Kaplan-Meir survival, and mixed-effects model for repeated measures analyses were performed. Lithium plus quetiapine reduces the risk of recurrence of any mood episode. There are significant differences between baseline and endpoint for YMRS, MADRS, and CGI-BP scales in the sample. In this pilot, exploratory analysis, combination therapy during maintenance treatment for comorbid BD with PTSD may be effective in preventing recurrences of any type of mood episode.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".