MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060275148 · doi:10.1080/10401230701653591

Differentiating Bipolar Disorders from Major Depressive Disorders: Treatment Implications

2007· review· en· W2060275148 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Muzina, David E. Kemp, Roger S. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Clinical Psychiatry · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderMajor depressive disorderPsychiatryPrevalence of mental disordersMoodMood disordersBipolar II disorderPsychologyDepression (economics)ManiaClinical psychologyMedicineMental healthAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is a highly prevalent mood disorder, frequently misdiagnosed as unipolar major depressive disorder. METHODS: In order to summarize the historical and clinical features that may distinguish bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, a MedLine search was conducted of all English-language articles published between 1996 and 2006 using the key search terms bipolar disorder and manic-depression cross-referenced with major depressive disorder. RESULTS: Better methods for arriving at the correct diagnosis of bipolar disorder include a clinical history that evaluates symptoms beyond narrow DSM-IV criteria and the use of self-reported screening tools. Twenty-six separate features were identified that are believed to aid in the differentiation of bipolar disorder from unipolar major depressive disorder. CONCLUSIONS: It is estimated that as many as 1 in 5 depressed outpatients may have undeclared bipolar disorder. Recognition of bipolar disorder can be improved by increasing the clinical acumen of diagnosticians and through the use of screening tools.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207