Correlates of Treatment Response in Depressed Older Adults With Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To identify baseline clinical factors associated with acute treatment response in depressed older adults with bipolar disorder (BD) receiving lamotrigine. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multisite, 12-week, open-label, uncontrolled study of add-on lamotrigine in 57 adults 60 years and older with BD I or II depression. Measures included the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Cardiometabolic risk was measured with total serum cholesterol and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) item #13 (endocrine/metabolic burden). Neurocognitive (executive) function was evaluated using the Trail Making Test. RESULTS: Greater reduction in MADRS from baseline was associated with higher baseline cardiometabolic burden at 6 and 9 weeks and lower YMRS scores at 9 weeks. At 12 weeks, improvement in the MADRS from baseline was no longer significantly related to baseline cardiometabolic burden or YMRS scores. A longitudinal mixed model of MADRS scores corroborated these findings with a significant finding of time-by-baseline cholesterol level interaction. In a subset of participants, better baseline executive function was related to greater improvement in the MADRS at 9 weeks but not at 6 or 12 weeks. Among all participants, higher baseline YMRS scores were related to greater likelihood of dropout. CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine appears to work best in depressed elderly patients with BD who have high cardiometabolic risk and low level of mania. Agents like lamotrigine that act primarily on neuroprogressive pathways involving oxidative stress, neurotrophins, and inflammation may be particularly effective in individuals with BD who have significant cardiometabolic burden because of their effects on shared vulnerability factors in BD and medical illness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".