The specific burden of comorbid anxiety disorders and of substance use disorders in bipolar I disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Uncertainty exists regarding whether comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs) in bipolar I disorder are more prevalent among persons with versus without comorbid anxiety disorders. Moreover, the independent contribution of these comorbidities to the burden of bipolar disorder (BD) is unclear. METHODS: The 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions was used to identify respondents with lifetime BD (n = 1,411). Illness severity was compared across four groups based on the presence of lifetime anxiety disorders, lifetime SUDs, neither, or both. Variables included lifetime prevalence of mixed mania, prolonged mood episodes, BD-related health service utilization, and forensic history, 12-month prevalence of mania and depression, and current general mental health functioning. Diagnoses were generated using the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule, DSM-IV Version. Analyses were computed separately for males and females. RESULTS: For females only, the lifetime prevalence of SUDs was significantly greater among those with lifetime anxiety disorders [odds ratio (OR) = 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.86]; this was not found among males (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.79-1.68). In multiple logistic regression analyses among both males and females, anxiety disorders were significantly associated with mixed episodes, prolonged depressive episodes, 12-month prevalence of depression, BD-related health service utilization, and poorer current mental health functioning. SUDs were significantly associated with mixed episodes among females, 12-month prevalence of depression among males, and with forensic history among both males and females. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas comorbid anxiety disorders appear to confer increased liability towards poor mental health functioning and greater BD-related health service utilization, comorbid SUDs are associated with positive forensic history. Early identification and treatment of these comorbid conditions are of paramount importance. Further representative prospective studies are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".