PW01-39 - Characteristics of Patients With Hypomanic Symptoms Presenting a Current Major Depressive Episode Identified With The Hcl-32 Patient Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the extent of hypomanic symptoms in patients presenting with a current major depressive episode (MDE) and to identify characteristics differentiating patients with hypomanic symptoms from those with pure unipolar depression, using the HCL-32 self-assessment tool. Methods This cross-sectional diagnostic study was performed in eighteen countries. Community- and hospital- based psychiatrists included consecutively all consulting adult patients with a diagnosis of MDE and completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic variables, diagnosis, medical history, treatment and comorbid psychiatric disorders. Each patient completed the Hypomania Self-Rating Scale (HCL-32 R2), and those scoring ≥14 were assigned a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The frequency of study variables in the bipolar disorder (BD) and unipolar depression subgroups were compared. Results A total of 5635 patients were included. Overall, 1645(39%) had received a diagnosis of BD, 703(16%) fulfilled DSM-IV-TR criteria for BD and 2942(54%) scored ≥14 on the HCL-32. Patients scoring ≥14 on the HCL-32 were significantly more likely to have experienced a mood switch in response to antidepressants (OR:3.4), a family history of bipolarity (OR:2.4), comorbid substance abuse (OR:2.1) or borderline personality disorder (OR:1.7) and current mixed-state symptoms (OR:1.5). Conclusions In patients with DSM-IV MDE self-assessed, hypomanic symptoms were present in 54% of patients, whereas only 16% fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for bipolar disorder. However, these patients presented features recognised to be associated with bipolar disorder. The presence of bipolarity in patients presenting with a major depressive disorder may be frequent and use of this questionnaire would contribute to improve awareness and prompt better diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".