A novel technique to evaluate fluctuations of mood: implications for evaluating course and treatment effects in bipolar/affective disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several psychiatric conditions are associated with frequent fluctuations of affect. In this study, we propose a new technique to uniformly score depression and mania objectively and use a new mathematical technique to model the frequent fluctuations in mood using simulated data. Our main aim is to examine the usefulness of this measure for evaluating treatment effects or course of illness, especially in bipolar or unipolar affective illness to quantify mood fluctuations. METHODS: We use a prototypical model, which takes into account the mean, the standard deviation (SD) and the coefficient of variation (CV = SD*100/mean) of the mood scores of the subjects over a user-defined period. We utilize simulated data of subjects for euthymia, minor depression, minor mania, severe depression, severe mania and cyclic bipolar illness (manic depression, MDP). We propose an objective method to quantify the mood of the subjects at weekly intervals (the interval can be user-defined) using a scale of 1-9 (1-4 = degrees of depression, 5 = euthymia, 6-9 = degrees of mania). These scores can be sampled according to the convenience and feasibility of the measurements, which can be derived from various clinical scales or by observation of the subjects in hospitals or other environments. We derive a new mathematical technique to arrive at a normalized measure for each of these conditions of simulated data in addition to the mean, SD and approximate entropy (ApEn). RESULTS: We utilize three sets of data, one to train the model to classify the condition of the subjects and the other two to test the reliability of the technique. We are able to successfully classify the condition of the subjects over a 52-timepoint period (length can be days or weeks depending upon the sampling rate). The New Index (NI) correlates significantly only with the mean (r(2) = 0.78), but not with the SD or ApEn score. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that it may be beneficial to reduce data according to the techniques we propose so that there is greater uniformity within which to compare future studies to evaluate treatment effects, not only in rapid-cycling MDP but also in other affective disorders. This method may be suitable for the meta-analysis of several studies, although different scales have been used in each of those studies. Our measure derived from simulated data has shown sufficient deviation of all the abnormal states from the euthymic state. The advantages and pitfalls of these techniques are further discussed to evaluate affect in various disorders. However, future prospective studies must address the importance of this measure in comparison with mean, SD and ApEn scores or other nonlinear measures of these time series. We are evaluating other nonlinear dynamic models, which may provide a continuous measure with which to identify different degrees of fluctuation of mood.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".