Rapid cycling bipolar disorder – diagnostic concepts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper reviews the literature to examine the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for rapid cycling in bipolar disorder. METHODS: Studies on the clinical characteristics of rapid cycling bipolar disorder were reviewed. To identify relevant papers, literature searches using PubMed and MEDLINE were undertaken. RESULTS: First observed in the prepharmacologic era, rapid cycling subsequently has been associated with a relatively poor response to pharmacologic treatment. Rapid cycling can be conceptualized as either a high frequency of episodes of any polarity or as a temporal sequence of episodes of opposite polarity. The DSM-IV defines rapid cycling as a course specifier, signifying at least four episodes of major depression, mania, mixed mania, or hypomania in the past year, occurring in any combination or order. It is estimated that rapid cycling is present in about 12-24% of patients at specialized mood disorder clinics. However, apart from episode frequency, studies over the past 30 years have been unable to determine clinical characteristics that define patients with rapid cycling as a specific subgroup. Furthermore, rapid cycling is a transient phenomenon in many patients. CONCLUSIONS: While a dimensional approach to episode frequency as a continuum between the extremes of no cycling and continuous cycling may be more appropriate and provide a framework to include ultra-rapid and ultradian cycling, the evidence does not exist today to refine the DSM-IV definition in a less arbitrary manner. Continued use of the DSM-IV definition also enables comparisons between past and future studies, and it should be included in the next release of the ICD. Further scientific investigation into rapid cycling is needed. In addition to improving the diagnostic criteria, insight into neurophysiologic mechanisms of mood switching and episode frequency may have important implications for clinical care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".