Identifying bipolar disorders in individuals with intellectual disability
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 the present study was to characterize adults with intellectual disability (ID) and concomitant clinical diagnoses of bipolar disorder (BPD), and determine whether DSM-IV criteria would distinguish individuals with BPD from patients with other psychiatric diagnoses. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was done of a convenience sample of adult patients seen over a 3-year period in a specialty clinic for adults with ID and psychiatric disorders. The DSM-IV criteria were used to differentiate individuals with clinical symptoms of BPD from groups of patients with other mood or thought disorders with behavioural symptoms which frequently overlap those of BPD. Behavioural symptoms were also catalogued and used to distinguish the diagnostic groups. RESULTS: Subjects with clinical symptoms of BPD had significantly more DSM-IV mood-related and non-mood-related symptoms, as well as functional impairments, compared to individuals with major depression, depression with psychosis or schizophrenia/psychosis NOS (not otherwise specified). Likewise, behavioural profiles of the BPD group of patients differed significantly from patients in the other three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar disorder can be readily recognized and distinguished from other behavioural and psychiatric diagnoses in individuals with ID, and DSM-IV criteria can be useful in the diagnosis of BPD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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