MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984428345 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.20011

Studies of offspring of parents with bipolar disorder

2003· review· en· W1984428345 on OpenAlexaff
Kiki Chang, Hans Steiner, Terence A. Ketter

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part C Seminars in Medical Genetics · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringBipolar disorderPsychopathologyPsychologyPsychosocialPopulationMoodTemperamentMood disordersClinical psychologyLongitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPersonalityBiologyMedicinePregnancyGeneticsAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children and adolescents who are the biological offspring of individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) (bipolar offspring) represent a population rich in potential for revealing important aspects in the development of BD. Multiple cross-sectional assessments of psychopathology in bipolar offspring have confirmed high incidences of BD, as well as mood and behavioral disorders, and other psychopathology in this population. Longitudinal studies of offspring have begun to shed light on precursors of BD development. Other assessments of bipolar offspring have included dimensional reports of psychiatric and psychosocial functioning, temperament assessments, and descriptions of family environments and parenting styles. Neurobiological studies in bipolar offspring are just beginning to yield findings that may be related to the underlying neuropathophysiology of BD. The future holds promise for longitudinal studies of bipolar offspring incorporating all of these facets, including genetic analyses, to further elucidate the factors involved in the evolution of BD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part C Seminars in Medical GeneticsSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207