MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042049799 · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-14-167

Pharmacotherapy for acute mania and disconcordance with treatment guidelines: bipolar mania pathway survey (BIPAS) in mainland China

2014· article· en· W2042049799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zuowei Wang, Keming Gao, Wu Hong, Mengjuan Xing, Zhiguo Wu, Jun Chen, Chen Zhang, Chengmei Yuan, Jia Huang, Daihui Peng, Yong Wang, Weihong Lu, Zhenghui Yi, Xin Yu, Jingping Zhao, Yiru Fang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGuidelineManiaBipolar disorderMedicinePsychiatryMood stabilizerMoodAnxietyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the recent attention to evidence-based medicine in psychiatry, a number of treatment guidelines for bipolar disorders have been published. This survey investigated prescribing patterns and predictors for guideline disconcordance in the acute treatment of a manic and mixed episode across mainland China. METHODS: The pharmacological treatments of 2828 patients with a recent hypomanic/manic episode or mixed state were examined. Guidelines disconcordance was determined by comparing the medication(s) patients were prescribed with the recommendation(s) in the guidelines of the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments. RESULTS: The most common pattern of pharmacological treatments for an acute manic or mixed episode was a mood stabilizer plus an atypical antipsychotic (n = 1345, 47.6%), and the rate of guideline-disconcordant treatments was 11.1%. The patients who were treated in general hospitals were more likely to receive guideline-disconcordant treatments than those who were treated in psychiatric hospitals, with an OR of 1.84 (95% CI 1.44-2.36). Similarly, the patients with a mixed episode at study entry were more likely to receive guideline-disconcordant treatments than those with a manic episode, with an OR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.22-2.35). In contrast, the patients with a longer duration of disease (>5 years) were less likely to receive guideline-disconcordant treatments than those with a short duration, with an OR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.36-0.60). CONCLUSIONS: In mainland China, the disconcordance with treatment guidelines for a most recent acute manic or mixed episode was modest under naturalistic conditions. The higher risk for disconcordance in general hospitals than in psychiatric hospitals suggests that special education based on treatment guidelines to practitioners in general hospitals is necessary in order to reduce the risk for disconcordant treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207