Incidence and Time Course of Subsyndromal Symptoms in Patients With Bipolar I Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subsyndromal symptoms in bipolar disorder can cause significant functional impairment and are associated with relapse. METHOD: In this post hoc analysis from 2 randomized, double-blind, 18-month, placebo-controlled maintenance trials for bipolar I disorder (both trials were conducted between August 1997 and August 2001 and used DSM-IV criteria), the incidence, time course, and impact of pharmacotherapy on subsyndromal symptoms were examined. RESULTS: Subsyndromal symptoms occurred in approximately 25% of all visits. Compared with placebo (54.8%), a significantly higher mean percentage of visits in remission were observed with lamotrigine treatment (63.0%, p = .020) but not with lithium treatment (60.0%, p = .165). The median time to onset of subsyndromal symptoms for lamotrigine (N = 223), lithium (N = 164), and placebo (N = 188) was 15, 15, and 9 days, respectively. Compared with placebo, both lamotrigine and lithium significantly delayed the time from randomization to onset of subsyndromal symptoms (p = .046, lamotrigine vs. placebo; p = .033, lithium vs. placebo; p = .763, lamotrigine vs. lithium) and the time from onset of subsyndromal symptoms to subsequent mood episode (p = .037, lamotrigine vs. placebo; p = .023, lithium vs. placebo; p = .845, lamotrigine vs. lithium). Agreement between the polarities of the first-observed subsyndromal symptom and subsequent intervention for mood episode was statistically significant (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Subsyndromal symptoms are common during maintenance treatment and appear to be associated with relapse into an episode of the same polarity. Both lithium and lamotrigine delayed the onset of subsyndromal symptoms and the time from onset of subsyndromal symptoms to subsequent relapse. Further study to assess whether treatment intervention can minimize subsyndromal symptoms or prevent relapse is encouraged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".