MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2134319043 · doi:10.4103/0253-7176.43130

Pharmacologic management of bipolar-II disorder

2008· article· en· W2134319043 sur OpenAlexaff
Lakshmi N. Yatham, David J. Bond

Notice bibliographique

RevueIndian Journal of Psychological Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBipolar disorderPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryLithium (medication)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Byline: David. Bond, Lakshmi. Yatham According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4[sup] th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)[sup] [1], bipolar II disorder (BDII) consists of recurrent episodes of depression and hypomania. Although the lifetime prevalence of BDII remains a matter of debate, with some studies reporting rates as high as 5% [sup] [2], most epidemiological surveys suggest a prevalence of 1%-2% [sup] [3],[4] .[sup] This makes BDII at least as common as bipolar I disorder (BDI), which has a lifetime prevalence of 1% [sup] [4] .[sup] BDII is sometimes viewed as a form of bipolar illness, but this is a misconception, as it is associated with rates of disability that are comparable to BDI [sup] [5] .[sup] As well, BDII may have the highest frequency of suicidal behaviour of any mood disorder[sup] [6] . Although BDII is defined by the occurrence of hypomania, for many patients it appears to be a predominantly depressive illness. Studies in treated samples demonstrate that BDII patients spend approximately half of their lives with depressive symptoms [sup] [7],[8] ,[sup] In fact, BDII is likely the most common cause of depression after major depressive disorder, with studies suggesting that 18.5% of family practice patients with depression and 40% of depressed patients in psychiatric specialty settings suffer from BDII [sup] [9],[10] . This[sup] is indicative of both the frequency of depressive symptoms, and the possibility that depressions do not respond as well to treatment as hypomanias. Hypomanias, in contrast to depressions, are often brief and are not uncommonly associated with minimal to mild disability[sup] [2],[5] . The frequency and severity of depression in BDII, coupled with the difficulties inherent in retrospectively ascertaining a history of hypomania, commonly lead to the misdiagnosis of BDII as major depressive disorder (MDD). To avoid this pitfall, clinicians should be finely attuned to the possibility of BDII as a cause of depression, and must be rigorous in screening all depressed patients for a history of hypomania. Furthermore, it is important to be aware of a number of barriers to the diagnosis of hypomania. First, patients and their families often do not recognize hypomania as a pathological state, and they frequently do not volunteer a history of hypomanic symptoms. Second, although the DSM-IV-TR requires a 4-day duration of symptoms to diagnose hypomania, hypomania is frequently briefer, with some studies suggesting a median duration of 1-3 days[sup] [2] .[sup] Thus, in addition to thoroughly screening patients for hypomanic symptoms, we have found a number of clinical tools useful in making the diagnosis. These include obtaining collateral history from family members; having patients keep daily mood diaries; and also having them complete the Mood Disorders Questionnaire (MDQ), a 13-item self reported questionnaire with queries about common hypomanic symptoms [sup] [11] .[sup] Although the MDQ has not been as rigorously studied as a screening instrument in BDII as it has in BDI, our clinical experience suggests that it can be a helpful diagnostic aid. Finally, the value of long-term follow-up cannot be overstated, as hypomanic symptoms often become obvious during long-term follow-up. Partly as a result of difficulties in making the correct diagnosis, the prevalence of hypomania has until recently been underestimated, and its treatment consequently understudied. Lacking an adequate evidence base, physicians are sometimes left with no alternative but to make treatment decisions for BDII patients based on the results of BDI studies. However, genetic [sup] [12] ,[sup] family history [sup] [13] ,[sup] and long-term follow-up studies [sup] [14] clearly indicate that BDI and BDII are distinct illnesses. More importantly, a number of clinical trials suggest that BDII patients may respond quite differently to mood stabilizing medications [sup] [15],[16],[17] and antidepressants [sup] [18] compared to patients with BDI. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,061

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0180,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,048
Tête enseignante GPT0,367
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIndian Journal of Psychological MedicineMême sujetBipolar Disorder and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207