MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Advances in bipolar disorder: selected sessions from the 2011 International Conference on Bipolar Disorder

2011· article· en· W1955307422 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Kupfer, Jules Angst, Michael Berk, Faith Dickerson, Sophia Frangou, Ellen Frank, Benjamin I. Goldstein, Allison G. Harvey, Fouzia Laghrissi‐Thode, Marion Leboyer, Michael J. Ostacher, Etienne Sibille, Stephen M. Strakowski, Trisha Suppes, Mauricio Tohen, Robert H. Yolken, L. Trevor Young, Carlos A. Zarate

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderPsychiatryPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Treatment of bipolar disorderComorbidityMedicineCognitionMania

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the 9(th) International Conference on Bipolar Disorder (ICBD) took place in Pittsburgh, PA, June 9-11, 2011. The conference focused on a number of important issues concerning the diagnosis of bipolar disorders across the life span, advances in neuroscience, treatment strategies for bipolar disorders, early intervention, and medical comorbidity. Several of these topics were discussed in four plenary sessions. This meeting report describes the major points of each of these sessions and included (1) strategies for moving biology forward; (2) bipolar disorder and the forthcoming new DSM-5 nomenclature; (3) management of bipolar disorders-both theory and intervention, with an emphasis on the medical comorbidities; and, (4) a review of several key task force reports commissioned by the International Society for Bipolar Disorder (ISBD).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicBipolar Disorder and Treatment→French-language works237,207→