Subsyndromal symptoms assessed in longitudinal, prospective follow‐up of a cohort of patients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with bipolar disorder (BD) do not regain full function following an acute illness episode, but the extent to which this impairment is the result of persistent symptoms has not been well established. This study examined factors associated with persistent subsyndromal symptoms in a well characterized group of BD patients who were prospectively followed for an average of 3 years. METHODS: Detailed life charting data from 138 patients with BD were reviewed. Patients were categorized into euthymic, subsyndromal or syndromal groups according to the clinical state during their most recent year of follow-up. The three groups were then examined with respect to comorbidity, function and treatment received. RESULTS: Patients with subsyndromal symptoms had high rates of comorbid anxiety disorders, and were more likely to have increased rates of eating disorders as well. Patients with subsyndromal symptoms had lower global assessment of function (GAF) scores than euthymic patients, and had as many clinic contacts and medication trials as patients with full episodes of illness. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent subsyndromal symptoms in BD patients are associated with high rates of comorbidity that is important to recognize and treat in order to optimize mood and functioning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".