Symptomatic and functional outcome 12 months after a first episode of psychotic mania: barriers to recovery in a catchment area sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have shown that outcome in mania is worse than previously thought. Such studies have been conducted in selected samples with restrictive measures of outcome. We aimed to explore outcome and its predictors in a catchment area sample of first-episode psychotic mania of DSM-III-R bipolar I disorder. METHODS: Prospective 6 and 12 months follow-up was conducted with 87 DSM-III-R first-episode psychotic mania patients admitted to Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre between 1989 and 1997. Syndromic and symptomatic outcome were determined with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; functional outcome with the Quality of Life Scale and Premorbid Adjustment Scale subitems. RESULTS: Symptomatic outcome was assessed in 67 patients at 6 months and 61 patients at 12 months, and functional outcome in 56 patients at 6 months and 49 patients at 12 months. Logistic regressions were conducted on 46 and 43 patients, respectively, to explore predictors of outcome. While 90% of patients achieved syndromic recovery at 6 and 12 months, 40% had not recovered symptomatically at 6 and 12 months, still presenting with anxiety or depression. A total of 66% of patients at 6 months and 61% of patients at 12 months failed to return to previous level of functioning. Age at intake, family history of affective disorder, illicit drug use and functional recovery at 6 months predicted functional outcome at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms poor symptomatic and functional outcome after first-episode psychotic mania. It suggests possible usefulness of early intervention strategies in bipolar disorders and need for developing specific interventions addressing anxiety, depression and substance abuse comorbidity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".