The Association Between Moderate Alcohol Use and Illness Severity in Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of alcohol consumption with symptoms, illness course, and health care utilization among non-alcoholic patients with bipolar disorder. METHOD: Subjects were 148 patients with bipolar I or II disorder enrolled in a longitudinal study of cognitive-behavioral therapy versus psychoeducation. Subjects were 18 to 60 years old, in full or partial remission, and non-heavy drinkers with no history of substance use disorders. At least 4 weeks of consistent naturalistic treatment with mood stabilizer was required for enrollment. Measures included the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Clinician-Administered Rating Scale for Mania, and the Khavari Alcohol Test. Data were gathered from July 2002 to December 2004. RESULTS: Mean weekly alcoholic beverage consumption was minimal among both men (3.8 standard drinks, SD = 8.9) and women (1.2 standard drinks, SD = 1.9). Nonetheless, total alcohol consumption among men was associated with lifetime manic episodes (F = 10.2, df = 1, p = .003) and emergency department visits (F = 4.3, df = 1, p = .046). Spirits consumption among men was strongly associated with lifetime manic episodes (F = 81.8, df = 1, p < .001) and emergency department visits (F = 14.0, df = 1, p < .001). Among women, the frequency of alcohol consumption was associated with lifetime episodes of depression (F = 15.5, df = 1, p < .001) and hypomania (F = 4.8, df = 1, p < .03). Wine consumption among women was associated with lifetime hypomanic episodes (F = 13.6, df = 1, p < .001) and current manic symptoms (F = 4.0, df = 1, p < .05). CONCLUSION: Despite low volumes of consumption, alcohol was associated with measures of illness severity in bipolar disorder among both men and women. The adverse effects of alcohol on bipolar disorder may occur over a range of consumption, rather than being confined to heavy drinkers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".