Phenotypic spectra of bipolar disorder in responders to lithium versus lamotrigine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a study of clinical presentation and family history in patients responsive to either of two commonly used mood stabilizers, lithium and lamotrigine. METHODS: The sample included 164 subjects from 21 families of bipolar probands, 14 responders to lithium and seven to lamotrigine. Diagnostic information on first-degree relatives was obtained in a blind fashion through a combination of direct interviews (SADS-L) and family history assessments (FH-RDC). RESULTS: The probands differed with respect to clinical course (episodic in the lithium group, rapid cycling in the lamotrigine group), and comorbidity (panic attacks and substance abuse in the lamotrigine group). The relatives of lithium responders had significantly higher risk of bipolar disorder while relatives of lamotrigine responders had higher prevalence of schizoaffective disorder, major depression and panic attacks. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that lithium- and lamotrigine-responsive patients differ with respect to course of illness, comorbidity and family history and may represent distinct subtypes of bipolar disorder.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".