A review of psychosocial outcome in patients with bipolar disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to review outcome in patients with bipolar disorder as assessed by interepisode level of functioning, as until recently this dimension of outcome has been relatively under-emphasized. METHOD: Studies that examined psychosocial outcome in bipolar disorder were reviewed on the basis of rating measurements employed, length of follow-up, number of subjects followed and degree of impairment reported. Studies were included only if results from patients with bipolar and unipolar disorder were reported in such a way that the groups could be distinguished. RESULTS: When studies of psychosocial outcome in bipolar disorder are examined in aggregate, it appears that 30-60% of individuals with this disorder fail to regain full functioning in occupational and social domains. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the fact that inter-episode functional recovery is incomplete in some patients, suggesting that comprehensive rehabilitative assessment and intervention may be essential to reduce the morbidity associated with this 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it