MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996794039 · doi:10.4088/pcc.10r01097

The Clinical Management of Bipolar Disorder

2011· article· en· W1996794039 on OpenAlex
K. Ryan Connolly, Michael E. Thase

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS Disorders · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderManiaRandomized controlled trialMoodGuidelineHypomaniaData extractionMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEPsychiatryClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the criteria used to diagnose the mood episodes that constitute bipolar disorder, the approach to the differential diagnosis of these presentations, and the evidence-based treatments that are currently available. DATA SOURCES: A search for evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of adults with bipolar disorder was performed on May 5, 2010, using the National Guideline Clearinghouse database, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Reports database, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In addition, a clinical query of the PubMed database (completed March 1, 2010) and searches of drug manufacturers' Web sites (for unpublished trials) were performed to identify randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses evaluating strategies to treat resistant depression. STUDY SELECTION: Guidelines were selected based on data from randomized, controlled trials; meta-analyses; and well-conducted naturalistic trials that were published since 2005. DATA EXTRACTION: Four evidence-based treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder were included. Three were published in 2009: those put forth as part of an Australian project, those of the British Association for Psychopharmacology, and those produced by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders and the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments. The most recent US guidelines are that of the Texas Implementation of Medication Algorithms project, last updated in 2005. DATA SYNTHESIS: Recommendations from all 4 guidelines were reviewed and are presented with a focus on using them to improve clinical care. The recommendations with the most agreement and highest level of clinical evidence were as follows: (1) mania should be treated first-line with lithium, divalproex, or an atypical antipsychotic medication; (2) mixed episodes should be treated first-line with divalproex or an atypical antipsychotic; (3) bipolar depression should be treated with quetiapine, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, or lamotrigine; and (4) all patients should be offered group or individual psychoeducation. Additionally, recommendations for therapeutic drug monitoring are presented due to their importance for patient safety, particularly for the primary care physician, although these are based on consensus guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar disorder is a lifelong illness that is complicated by high comorbidity and risk of poor health outcomes, making the primary care physician's role vital in improving patient quality of life. The management of acute mood episodes should focus first on safety, should include psychiatric consultation as soon as possible, and should begin with an evidence-based treatment that may be continued into the maintenance phase. Long-term management focuses on maintenance of euthymia, requires ongoing medication, and may benefit from adjunctive psychotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.262 · 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