Clinical Characteristics Associated with Lithium Use among Adolescents with Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known regarding demographic and/or clinical characteristics associated with the use of lithium among adolescents with bipolar disorder (BP) in naturalistic clinical settings. We therefore examined factors associated with lithium among adolescents with BP presenting to a tertiary outpatient clinic. METHODS: Participants were 100 adolescents 13-19 years of age, with BP-I, BP-II, or BP not otherwise specified (BP-NOS). Diagnoses and lifetime medication exposure were determined using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School Age Children, Present and Lifetime Version (KSADS-PL). Analyses examined for demographic and clinical correlates of lifetime lithium exposure. RESULTS: Twenty percent of participants reported lifetime lithium use. Participants with, versus those without, lifetime lithium use were significantly older and significantly more likely to have BP-I, lifetime history of psychiatric hospitalization, and psychosis. Lithium-treated participants were significantly more likely to report use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and antimanic anticonvulsants. In contrast, participants with lithium exposure were significantly less likely to have BP-II, self-injurious behavior, and a family history of depression. Adolescents with lithium exposure had significantly less parent-reported family conflict and mood lability, and significantly less self-reported impulsivity, emotional dysregulation, identity confusion, and interpersonal problems. In multivariable analyses, lithium use was associated with greater lifetime SGA use, lower parent-reported family conflict, and lower adolescent-reported interpersonal problems. CONCLUSIONS: Lithium was infrequently used among adolescents with BP in this sample. Although constrained by retrospective methodology and a single site, our findings suggest that clinicians may be deferring lithium use until late in treatment. The fact that there are lower rates of lithium use among adolescents with suicidal ideation, impulsivity, mood lability, and family history of depression suggests potential missed opportunities for use of lithium among high-risk adolescents with BP.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".