Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and integrate observations from bipolar patients responsive to lithium stabilization and their children. METHOD: Selected findings are described from the clinical and biological investigations of adults meeting research criteria for bipolar disorder and for responsiveness to lithium stabilization; and from prospective studies of the children of lithium responders and non-responders. RESULTS: Response to prophylactic lithium identifies a valid subtype of bipolar disorder, however the search for biological markers of lithium response, while promising, has so far remained inconclusive. Adult responders to lithium stabilization exhibit definable clinical features which are also observable in their affected children. In prospective studies the children of bipolar parents develop symptoms earlier than reported previously, with marked differences between the offspring of lithium responders and non-responders. The illness evolves in predictable clinical stages, first from non-specific sleep and anxiety disorders to mood symptoms and then, often starting in adolescence, major depressive and later activated episodes. CONCLUSION: Investigating and comparing unequivocal responders and non-responders to long-term lithium treatment and their offspring is a fertile research strategy for addressing a multitude of clinical and research questions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".