Prophylaxis Latency and Outcome in Bipolar Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze new and reviewed findings to evaluate relations between treatment response and latency from onset of bipolar disorder (BD) to the start of mood-stabilizer prophylaxis. METHOD: We analyzed our own new data and added findings from research reports identified by computerized searching. RESULTS: We found 11 relevant studies, involving 1485 adult patients diagnosed primarily with BD. Reported latency to prophylaxis averaged 9.6 years (SD 1.3), and follow-up in treatment averaged 5.4 years (SD 3.1). Greater illness intensity and shorter treatment latency were closely associated, resulting in a greater apparent reduction in morbidity with earlier treatment. However, this finding was not sustained after correction for pretreatment morbidity, and treatment latency did not predict morbidity during treatment. Therefore, assessments based on improvement with treatment, or without correction for pretreatment morbidity, can be misleading. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence does not support the proposal that delayed prophylaxis may limit response to prophylactic treatment in BD and related disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".