A prospective, longitudinal study of percentage of time spent ill in patients with bipolar I or bipolar II disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a recent appreciation that patients with bipolar disorder spend a substantial period of time with minor or subsyndromal mood symptoms both manic and depressive. This study examined time spent in minor and subsyndromal mood states as well as with mania and depression in a cohort of well characterized bipolar I and II patients who were followed prospectively for an average of three years. METHOD: Detailed life-charting data were obtained from 138 patients with bipolar disorder. Mood states were characterized as euthymic, subsyndromal, minor or major affective episodes based on rigorously defined criteria. The amount of time spent in these mood states during follow-up was examined. RESULTS: Patients in the total sample and within each bipolar subtype spent approximately half of their time euthymic. The remainder of the time was spent in varying severity of mood states. However, the majority of time was spent with minor and subsyndromal symptoms, both manic and depressive. Bipolar I patients differ from bipolar II in that significantly more time was spent with subsyndromal, minor and manic symptoms. There was no difference in time spent with depressive symptoms between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bipolar disorder spend a substantial proportion of time with depressive or manic symptoms with the preponderance being minor or subsyndromal. Awareness of subthreshold symptoms in bipolar disorders and treatment of such symptoms may be improved by establishing guidelines that specifically outline appropriate strategies for reducing the duration of subsyndromal symptoms in 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".