Cited by 121Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentTreatment of Major DepressionSchizophrenia research and treatment

Efficacy of modern antipsychotics in placebo-controlled trials in bipolar depression: a meta-analysis

Open access
Cruz, Nuria, Sanchez-Moreno, Jose, Torres, Ferran, Goikolea, Jose Manuel, Valentí, Marc, Vieta, Eduard·2010·The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder. Despite depression being considered the hallmark of bipolar disorder, there are no published systematic reviews or meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of modern atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression. We systematically reviewed published or registered randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of modern antipsychotics in adult bipolar I and/or II depressive patients (DSM-IV criteria). Efficacy outcomes were assessed based on changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) during an 8-wk period. Data were combined through meta-analysis using risk ratio as an effect size with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and with a level of statistical significance of 5% (p<0.05). We identified five RCTs; four involved antipsychotic monotherapy and one addressed both monotherapy and combination with an antidepressant. The two quetiapine trials analysed the safety and efficacy of two doses: 300 and 600 mg/d. The only olanzapine trial assessed olanzapine monotherapy within a range of 5-20 mg/d and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination within a range of 5-20 mg/d and 6-12 mg/d, respectively. The two aripiprazole placebo-controlled trials assessed doses of 5-30 mg/d. Quetiapine and olanzapine trials (3/5, 60%) demonstrated superiority over placebo (p<0.001). Only 2/5 (40%) (both aripiprazole trials) failed in the primary efficacy measure after the first 6 wk. Some modern antipsychotics (quetiapine and olanzapine) have demonstrated efficacy in bipolar depressive patients from week 1 onwards. Rapid onset of action seems to be a common feature of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1461145709990344

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

2 of 26 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Currently, atypical antipsychotics are only considered by treatment guidelines as second- or third-line therapy in the management of bipolar depression.

    “Currently, atypical antipsychotics are only considered by treatment guidelines as second-or third-line therapy in the management of bipolar depression”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fountoulakis et al. 2007 source

      Table 1 in the Background section lists olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, as a first-step treatment for acute bipolar depression under the 2002 TMAP guideline. That contradicts the claim that guidelines consider atypical antipsychotics only as second- or third-line therapy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    Treatment effects regarding remission showed a high degree of heterogeneity on global assessment (p=0.0010).

    “Treatment effects regarding remission also showed a high degree of heterogeneity on global assessment (p=0.0010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Quetiapine and olanzapine trials (3/5, 60%) demonstrated superiority over placebo (p<0.001) at week 8.

    “Quetiapine and olanzapine trials (3/5, 60 %) demonstrated superiority over placebo (p<0.001).”
    • Also stated in: § Assessment of the MADRS scale · boosted
      “All quetiapine and olanzapine trials demonstrated significant superiority over placebo at week 8 (i.e.all CIs in the pooled analysis excluded zero).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Within each drug, heterogeneity was substantially reduced (quetiapine p=0.803; olanzapine non-estimable; aripiprazole p=0.813).

    “However, when assessing the estimates within each drug, the heterogeneity was substantially reduced [quetiapine : p=0.803 ; olanzapine : p non-estimable (one study) ; aripiprazole : p=0.813].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Within each drug, response heterogeneity was substantially reduced (quetiapine p=0.266; olanzapine non-estimable; aripiprazole p=0.5930).

    “However, when assessing the estimates within each drug, the heterogeneity was substantially reduced [quetiapine : p=0.266 ; olanzapine : p non-estimable (one study) ; aripiprazole : p=0.5930].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • May combine two claims. 20
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Atypical antipsychotics have not traditionally been considered a major option in depression guidelines unless psychotic features were present during the acute depressive episode.

    “Atypical antipsychotics have not traditionally been considered as a major option in depression guidelines, unless psychotic features were present during the acute depressive episode”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites APA, 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Grunze et al. 2002 source

      The Recommendations (page unavailable) discuss atypical-antipsychotic augmentation in the context of severe and psychotic depression, while the Conclusions identify a mood stabiliser plus antidepressant as the emerging first-line approach. But the paper does not establish a historical rule across depression guidelines that atypical antipsychotics were a major option only when psychotic features were present; it also notes possible antidepressant effects from atypicals themselves. (LLM, conf=0.80)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Yatham et al. 2005b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Aripiprazole trials excluded patients with psychotic features; bipolar II patients were only enrolled in quetiapine studies (32-34%); no trials excluded rapid cycling, which represented 18-40% of patients in studies reporting such data.

    “The aripiprazole trials (Thase et al. 2008) excluded patients with psychotic features and bipolar II patients were only enrolled in the quetiapine studies (32-34 %) ; no trials excluded patients with rapid cycling, which represented 18-40 % of patients in the studies reporting such data”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Calabrese et al. 2005 source
    • cites Thase et al. 2006 source
    • cites Tohen et al. 2003 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Medline search identified 15 studies; only three met inclusion criteria; two additional studies were identified from review of meeting proceedings or consultation with study investigators.

    “The Medline search identified 15 studies.Only three of these met the inclusion criteria.Two additional studies were identified from a review of meeting proceedings or consultation with study investigators.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Sensitivity analysis excluding aripiprazole for remission showed smaller heterogeneity (p=0.052) and pooled OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.35-0.74, p<0.001).

    “Moreover, when performing the sensitivity analysis excluding the aripiprazole group, the heterogeneity was smaller (p=0.052), and the pooled OR was 0.51 (95 % CI 0.35-0.74,p<0.001)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Sensitivity analysis excluding aripiprazole for response showed smaller heterogeneity (p=0.1280) and pooled OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.41-0.74, p<0.001).

    “Further, when performing the sensitivity analysis excluding the aripiprazole group, the heterogeneity was smaller (p=0.1280), and the pooled OR was 0.55 (95 % CI 0.41-0.74,p<0.001)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    A total of five studies were included.

    “A total of five studies were included.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The overall mean estimate for MADRS change was -3.91 (95% CI -5.55 to -2.26, p<0.001).

    “The overall mean estimate was x3.91 (95 % CI x5.55 to x2.26, p<0.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Sensitivity analysis excluding aripiprazole showed negligible heterogeneity (p=0.302) and pooled mean -4.90 (95% CI -6.21 to -3.59, p<0.001).

    “Moreover, when performing the sensitivity analysis excluding the aripiprazole group, the heterogeneity was then negligible (p=0.302), and the pooled mean was x4.90 (95 % CI x6.21 to x3.59, p<0.001)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Baseline depression scores were similar in all studies, with moderate to severely depressed patients at inclusion (score range 28.49 to 32.6).

    “The baseline depression scores were similar in all the studies with moderate to severely depressed patients at inclusion (score range from 28.49 to 32.6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All atypical antipsychotics demonstrated significant efficacy from week 1 and throughout the first 6 wk, the time with maximal effect size reported by all studies.

    “All of the atypical antipsychotics demonstrated significant efficacy from week 1 and throughout the first 6 wk, which was the time with the maximal effect size reported by all of the studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Only 2/5 (40%) (both aripiprazole trials) failed in the primary efficacy measure after the first 6 wk; from week 6 to endpoint quetiapine and olanzapine maintained superiority over placebo, but aripiprazole did not.

    “Only 2/5 (40 %) (both aripiprazole trials) failed in”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Less than 9% of patients gained more than 7% from baseline as a clinically meaningful measurement.

    “In fact, weight gain associated to quetiapine administration was mild and dose-related, with <9 % of patients gaining o7% from baseline as a clinical meaningfully measurement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The studies differed in whether they included rapid-cycling patients or those in mixed states.

    “The studies also differed in whether they included rapid-cycling patients or those in mixed states and also in the proportion of bipolar I or II patients with psychotic features.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The olanzapine adverse-event profile was consistent with previously reported findings.

    “The olanzapine adverse-event profile was consistent with previously reported findings whereas the OFC profile was similar to that of olanzapine, except for higher rates of nausea and diarrhoea.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Aripiprazole trials showed a 6-week limited superiority compared to placebo, with decreasing effect size at endpoint.

    “except for aripiprazole trials which have shown a 6-wk limited superiority compared to placebo, decreasing its effect size at endpoint (Thase et al. 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thase et al. 2008 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Quetiapine and olanzapine monotherapy had higher response and remission rates.

    “The superiority of quetiapine and olanzapine monotherapy by week is emphasized by higher response and remission rates and, except for aripiprazole, lower drop-out rates due to adverse events.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The studies differed in the proportion of bipolar I or II patients with psychotic features.

    “The studies also differed in whether they included rapid-cycling patients or those in mixed states and also in the proportion of bipolar I or II patients with psychotic features.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Most discontinuations occurred within the first week.

    “The most common adverse effects reported in y30 % of patients were not severe, mostly somnolence and sedation leading to withdrawal from the study, with most discontinuations occurring within the first week.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The OFC profile was similar to that of olanzapine, except for higher rates of nausea and diarrhoea.

    “The olanzapine adverse-event profile was consistent with previously reported findings whereas the OFC profile was similar to that of olanzapine, except for higher rates of nausea and diarrhoea.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Homogeneity across the trials' design and study sample characteristics were the rule.

    “The homogeneity across the trials' design and also in their study sample characteristics were the rule.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Atypical antipsychotics are generally classified as a class despite marked differences in pharmacodynamic properties.

    “Moreover, atypical antipsychotics, are generally classified as a class, despite their marked differences in pharmacodynamic properties”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brugue & Vieta, 2007 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Combining atypical antipsychotics and mood stabilizers is the most efficacious treatment in acute mania.

    “Currently available data suggest that combining atypical antipsychotics and mood stabilizers is the most efficacious treatment in acute mania, reinforced after a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled data conducted by Perlis and Scherk”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Perlis et al. 2006 source
    • cites Scherk et al. 2007 source
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Quetiapine and olanzapine as monotherapy were significantly more efficacious than placebo, as indicated by greater reductions in MADRS scores, in the treatment of acute bipolar depression from week 1 onwards.

    “Some modern antipsychotics (quetiapine and olanzapine) have demonstrated efficacy in bipolar depressive patients from week 1 onwards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Calabrese et al. 2005 source
    • cites Thase et al. 2006 source
    • cites Tohen et al. 2003 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Meta-analytical procedures allow answering questions about overall magnitude of effect and relative effect by week with greater statistical power than individual trials.

    “Meta-analytical procedures allow us to answer questions about overall magnitude of effect and relative effect by week with greater statistical power than individual trials.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder.

    “Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
      “Randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated efficacy for atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder, either as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bowden et al. 2005 source
    • cites Garcia-Amador et al. 2006 source
    • cites Hirschfeld et al. 2004 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Evidence suggests some atypical antipsychotics may have antidepressant and stabilizing effects.

    “while evidence suggests some atypical antipsychotics may have antidepressant (Yatham et al. 2005a) and stabilizing effects (Vieta et al. 2008a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Yatham et al. 2005a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Vieta et al. 2008a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    To avoid publication bias, the authors checked the web (clinicaltrials.gov) and contacted all industry sponsors for finalized studies.

    “To avoid publication bias, we checked the web (www. clinicaltrials.gov)and contacted all industry sponsors for finalized studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These results raise questions on the current approach by most treatment guidelines and on the potential mechanism of the action involved in the improvement of depressive symptoms in bipolar depression by means of drugs traditionally considered as antipsychotics.

    “These results raise questions on the current approach by most treatment guidelines and on the potential mechanism of the action involved in the improvement of depressive symptoms in bipolar depression by means of drugs traditionally considered as antipsychotics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In the olanzapine trial that included an olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, only the olanzapine monotherapy arm was considered for the analysis to obtain homogeneous comparative results.

    “In the only olanzapine trial which included an olanzapinefluoxetine combination (OFC) treatment, we only considered the olanzapine monotherapy arm for the analysis in order to obtain homogeneous comparative results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Bipolar disorders present initially with a depressive episode in >50% of patients, which is considered the major burden of bipolar disorder in terms of disability and suicide risk.

    “Bipolar disorders present initially with a depressive episode in >50 % of patients, which is considered the major burden of bipolar disorder in terms of disability and suicide risk”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Colom et al. 2006 source
    • cites Daban et al. 2006 source
    • cites Mitchell et al. 2008 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    A random-effects model was considered preferable to a fixed-effects model because it was considered likely a priori that not all trials would produce exactly equal underlying effect sizes.

    “Since it was considered likely a priori that not all trials would produce exactly equal underlying effect sizes, a random-effects model was considered preferable to a fixed-effects models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The question of their class effect seems to be answered positively regarding its early onset of action but with differences in the magnitude and maintenance of effect.

    “The question of their class effect seems to be answered positively regarding its early onset of action but with differences in the magnitude and maintenance of effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Higher aripiprazole doses as monotherapy compared to combination use suggests one potential reason for failed results in the aripiprazole trials, involving tolerability issues (especially akathisia perhaps related to dosing), leading to drop-outs, and differences in mechanism of action such as too high D2 affinity and low H1 affinity compared to quetiapine and olanzapine.

    “This fact suggests one potential reason for failed results in the aripiprazole trials (tolerability issues, especially akathisia perhaps related to dosing), leading to drop-outs and also related to differences in its mechanism of action such as too high D 2 affinity and low H 1 affinity compared to quetiapine and olanzapine.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the source of heterogeneity by excluding the aripiprazole studies, as they were negative on the primary outcome.

    “We also performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the source of heterogeneity by excluding the aripiprazole studies, as they were negative on the primary outcome.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The very early onset of action of all tested atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of bipolar depression, even as monotherapy, may highlight an overlapping mechanism of action of these drugs as a potential class effect with independence of the monoaminergic pathways.

    “The very early onset of action of all tested atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of bipolar depression, even as monotherapy, may highlight an overlapping mechanism of action of these drugs as a potential class effect with independence of the monoaminergic pathways.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Our results suggest some atypical antipsychotics (quetiapine and olanzapine) may be considered as a first-line management option in acute bipolar I and/or II depression, even for poor responder subgroups such as rapid cyclers and patients with psychotic features.

    “In summary our results suggest some atypical antipsychotics (quetiapine and olanzapine) may be considered as a first-line management option in acute bipolar I and/or II depression, even for poor responder subgroups such as rapid cyclers and patients with psychotic features.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
36 of 36
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No published systematic reviews or meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of modern atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression existed at the time of the study.

    “Despite depression being considered the hallmark of bipolar disorder, there are no published systematic reviews or meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of modern atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression.”
    “meta-analyses addressing the efficacy and effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression are lacking.”
1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abstract names a different effect measure

    Minor

    The abstract says the meta-analysis used risk ratios, but the methods and reported response and remission results use odds ratios. These are different effect measures.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Vieta, Journal of Psychopharmacology

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cruz, N., Sanchez-Moreno, J., Torres, F., Goikolea, J. M., Valentí, M., & Vieta, E.
Affiliations
  • Consorci Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer (ES)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Vieta, Eduard
Venue
The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology
Published
2009-07-29
Volume
13
Issue
01
Pages
5
ISSN
  • 1461-1457 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5111
OpenAlex
W2142698669
Cited by
121
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (publishedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • Sanofi
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
  • Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental
  • Servier
  • Cilag
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
bipolar depression, atypical antipsychotics, quetiapine, olanzapine, aripiprazole, antipsychotic monotherapy, antidepressant combination therapy, rapid onset of action, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale
MeSH terms
Aripiprazole, Quetiapine Fumarate, Olanzapine, Antidepressive Agents, Benzodiazepines, Bipolar Disorder, Dibenzothiazepines, Drug Combinations, Drug Therapy, Combination, Fluoxetine, Humans, Piperazines, Placebos, Antipsychotic Agents, Quinolones, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review