Rapid cycling bipolar disorders in primary and tertiary care treated patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rapid cycling (RC) affects 13-30% of bipolar patients. Most of the data regarding RC have been obtained in tertiary care research centers. Generalizability of these findings to primary care populations is thus questionable. We examined clinical and demographic factors associated with RC in both primary and tertiary care treated populations. METHOD: Clinical data were obtained by interview from 240 bipolar I disorder (BDI) or bipolar II disorder (BDII) community-treated patients and by chart reviews from 119 bipolar patients treated at an outpatient clinic of a teaching hospital. RESULTS: Lifetime history of rapid cycling was present in 33.3% and 26.9% of patients from the primary and tertiary care samples, respectively. Among community-treated patients, lifetime history of RC was significantly associated with history of suicidal behavior and higher body mass index. There was a trend for association between RC and BDII, psychiatric comorbidity, diabetes mellitus, as well as lower age of onset of mania/hypomania. In the tertiary care treated sample there was a trend for association between lifetime history of RC and suicidal behavior. Tertiary versus primary care treated subjects with lifetime history of RC demonstrated markedly lower response to mood stabilizers. CONCLUSIONS: Lifetime history of RC is highly prevalent in both primary and tertiary settings. Even primary care treated subjects with lifetime history of RC seem to suffer from a more complicated and less treatment-responsive variant of bipolar disorder. Our findings further suggest relatively good generalizability of data from tertiary to primary care settings.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".