Nonlinear dynamics of mood regulation in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to study the underlying dynamic processes involved in mood regulation in subjects with bipolar disorder and healthy control subjects using time-series analysis and to then analyze the relation between anxiety and mood using cross-correlation techniques. METHODS: We recruited 30 healthy controls and 30 euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. Participants rated their mood, anxiety, and energy levels using a paper-based visual analog scale; and they also recorded their sleep and any life events. Information on these variables was provided over a three-month period on a daily basis, twice per day. We analyzed the data using Box-Jenkins time series analysis to obtain information on the autocorrelation of the series (for mood) and cross-correlation (mood and anxiety series). RESULTS: Throughout the study, we analyzed 10,170 data points. Self-ratings for mood, anxiety, and energy were normally distributed in both groups. Autocorrelation functions for mood in both groups were governed by the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) (1,1,0) model, which means that current values in the series were related to one previous point only. We also found a negative cross-correlation between mood and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Mood can be considered a memory stochastic process; it is a flexible, dynamic process that has a 'short memory' both in healthy controls and euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. This process may be quite different in untreated patients or in those acutely ill. Our results suggest that nonlinear measures can be applied to the study of mood disorders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".