The early manifestations of bipolar disorder: a longitudinal prospective study of the offspring of bipolar parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A major aim of this longitudinal high-risk study is to identify reliable early indicators of emerging bipolar disorder (BD) among offspring from well-characterized parents. METHODS: High-risk offspring were recruited from families in which one parent had BD diagnosed on the basis of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia - Lifetime version (SADS-L) interviews and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria and the other parent was well. Bipolar parents were further subdivided on the basis of response or non-response to long-term lithium. A comparison group of offspring was recruited from well parents diagnosed on the basis of either SADS-L interviews or the family history method. All consenting offspring from high-risk and control families were assessed longitudinally with the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-aged Children - Present and Lifetime version (KSADS-PL) interviews and DSM-IV diagnoses were made on a blind consensus review. The offspring were reassessed on average annually, as well as at any time symptoms developed. RESULTS: Antecedent conditions to BD in both high-risk groups included sleep and anxiety disorders, while attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and pre-psychotic conditions were antecedents among the offspring of lithium non-responders only. Among those offspring developing BD, the index mood episode was almost always depressive. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a specific genetic risk, BD began with non-specific psychopathology and/or depressive disorders in a majority of offspring. Therefore, diagnosis based only on cross-sectional assessment of symptoms appears to be insufficient for the accurate early detection of emerging BD. Other parameters such as family history and associated antecedents should be taken into account.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".