Relationship between adjunctive medications for anxiety and time spent ill in patients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Many patients with bipolar disorder take adjunctive medications for anxiety. Using naturalistic data, we investigated the relationship between the use of adjunctive anxiolytics and the time spent in episodes or with subsyndromal mood symptoms. Methods. This was a post-hoc analysis of 310 patients with bipolar disorder who previously recorded mood and medications daily for 5 months using ChronoRecord software. One hundred patients were taking adjunctive anxiolytics for at least 50% of days; 210 were not. Of the 100 patients, 73 were taking a benzodiazepine. All patients taking anxiolytics were also receiving treatments for bipolar disorder. Results. Patients with bipolar disorder who were taking adjunctive medications for anxiety spent more time ill. Comparing patients who were taking or not taking anxiolytics, the mean days spent either in any episode or with subsyndromal symptoms was 45.6 vs. 29.6%, respectively (P<0.001), the mean days in any episode was 17.1 vs. 9.2%, respectively (P=0.016), and the mean days with subsyndromal depression was 26.4 vs. 16.2%, respectively (P=0.004). Conclusion. While this methodology cannot determine causality, these findings highlight the need for controlled studies of the long-term impact of adjunctive medications for anxiety on mood symptoms in patients being treated for bipolar 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".