Comorbid Substance Use Disorders Among Youth With Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The burden of substance use disorders (SUDs) among adults with bipolar disorder is well documented. Comparatively less is known regarding comorbid SUD among youth with bipolar disorder. This article aims to integrate the extant literature on this topic and to suggest strategies for delaying or preventing SUD among youth with bipolar disorder. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Relevant studies in English were identified using PubMed and MEDLINE (1950-February 2009). Search terms were bipolar disorder cross-referenced with child, adolescent, or youth, and alcohol, drug, or substance, and abuse, dependence, or disorder. Articles were selected on the basis of containing data regarding both bipolar disorder and SUD. The search was supplemented by manually reviewing reference lists from the identified publications. DATA SYNTHESIS: Epidemiologic and clinical studies demonstrate that youth-onset bipolar disorder confers even greater risk of SUD in comparison with adult-onset bipolar disorder. Recent studies of youth with bipolar disorder have not identified childhood SUD (0%); however, the prevalence of SUD escalates during adolescence (16%-39%). Substance use disorder among bipolar youth is associated with legal and academic difficulties, pregnancy, and suicidality. Few studies have addressed interventions for this population, although studies are underway. Because bipolar disorder onset most commonly precedes SUD among youth (55%-83%), there is a window of opportunity for prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Pending the results of ongoing treatment studies, several strategies are suggested for curtailing the burden of SUD in youth with bipolar disorder. These include screening for substance use among bipolar youth beginning at age 10 irrespective of other risk factors, education and intervention at the family level, and implementation of preventive interventions that have been successful in other populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".