Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There has been substantial clinical and research interest in describing the complete natural history of bipolar disorder, and related to this significant debate in regard to the validity of the bipolar diagnosis in very young children. Given the high heritability of bipolar disorder, longitudinal high risk studies can provide important information in regard to the evolution of the disorder. METHODS: A selected review and discussion of the findings from key longitudinal high risk studies are presented focusing on the relevance for mapping the early course of illness, addressing the validity of the bipolar diagnosis in very young referred children and implications for diagnosis and organization of services. RESULTS: To date, there have been findings reported from several longitudinal high risks studies starting with well characterized affected parents, all of which support an evolution of psychopathology from non-specific disorders to frank bipolarity. Early childhood antecedents include internalizing and sleep disorders and typically not behavioural disorders. In the majority of cases, the early mood pathology and associated morbidity is related to the depressive polarity. None of these studies have reported a single case of pre-pubertal mania. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of considering the clinical course and the family history in diagnostic formulation in pediatric patients early in the course of a psychiatric illness. The implications of these findings for early intervention and organization of child psychiatry services are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".