How Well Do Psychosocial Interventions Work in Bipolar Disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although medication is the mainstay of treatment for bipolar disorder, several adjunctive psychosocial interventions have been manualized over the last decade. This paper's objective is to empirically evaluate the different treatment approaches. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of the recent literature pertaining to psychosocial interventions in bipolar, using MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Bibliographies of papers were scrutinized for further relevant references. Articles published from 1999 up to and including 2006 were reviewed. Randomized controlled trials were emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: Although psychological models of bipolar disorder fail to inform the psychotherapy treatment to the same extent as in unipolar depression, manualized adjunctive, short-term psychotherapies have been shown to offer fairly consistent benefits to bipolar disorder patients. Cognitive-behavioural therapy, family-focused therapy, and psychoeducation offer the most robust efficacy in regard to relapse prevention, while interpersonal therapy and cognitive-behavioural therapy may offer more benefit in treating residual depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".