MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W20503809 · doi:10.1177/070674370705201202

Defects of Mitochondrial Electron Transport Chain in Bipolar Disorder: Implications for Mood-Stabilizing Treatment

2007· review· en· W20503809 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Junfeng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroprotectionBipolar disorderMoodMood stabilizerMitochondrionOxidative phosphorylationReactive oxygen speciesAntioxidantOxidative damageMedicineOxidative stressPharmacologyChemistryPsychiatryInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Converging lines of evidence indicate that defects in the mitochondrial electron transport chain (ETC) are associated with bipolar disorder (BD), and that mood-stabilizing drugs produce neuroprotective effects. Our objective is to review the most recent findings regarding this research. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE and have reviewed here the most recently published articles. RESULTS: There are deletions, mutation, and decreased expression of mitochondrial ETC complexes in BD. Because ETC is a major source of reactive oxygen species, these factors, along with decreased expression of antioxidant enzymes in BD, suggest the presence of oxidative damage in this disorder. Numerous recent studies have shown that mood-stabilizing drugs produce neuroprotective effects against oxidative damage and increase expression and activities of endogenous antioxidant enzymes in the rat brain. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that the process of oxidative damage could be a significant therapeutic target for the treatment of BD with mood-stabilizing drugs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations52
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207