Factors Associated With Temporal Priority in Comorbid Bipolar I Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare illness characteristics, comorbidities, treatment utilization, and family history among individuals with comorbid bipolar I disorder and alcohol use disorders (AUD) based on temporal priority of onset. METHOD: The 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions identified respondents with lifetime comorbid bipolar I disorder and AUD for whom AUD were antecedent (Alcohol First; N = 311), the onset of the 2 conditions occurred in the same year (Same Year; N = 113), or bipolar I disorder was antecedent (Bipolar First; N = 233). Diagnoses were generated using the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-DSM-IV Version. This study examined between-group differences in bipolar I- and AUD-related variables. RESULTS: Bipolar First respondents were most likely to experience prolonged manic episodes. There were no differences in the 12-month prevalence of bipolar I disorder among respondents with prior history of bipolar I disorder. The 12-month prevalence of AUD among respondents with prior history of AUD was lower among Alcohol First respondents compared to Same Year or Bipolar First respondents. Same Year respondents were most likely to seek AUD treatment and reported comparatively short latency between onset and treatment of both bipolar I disorder and AUD. The prevalence of family history of comorbid depression and AUD was greatest among Same Year respondents. Same Year respondents also showed the lowest prevalence of anxiety disorders. Overall psychosocial functioning was similar across groups. CONCLUSION: Temporal priority in comorbid bipolar I disorder and AUD is associated with several significant between-group differences in features of bipolar I disorder and AUD severity, treatment utilization, other comorbidities, and family history. Same-year onset of bipolar I disorder and AUD may be a marker of a specific subtype of bipolar I-AUD comorbidity. Potential implications of these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".