Mini-clusters of potentially prodromal symptoms may identify psychiatrically well Amish children at higher risk of developing bipolar I disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Egeland JA, Shaw JA, Endicott J, et al . Prospective study of prodromal features for bipolarity in well Amish children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2003;42:786–96.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Do frequencies of potential early prodromal clinical features for bipolar I (BPI) disorder in psychiatrically well Amish children correlate with family history, and therefore inferred risk, of BPI? ### ![Graphic][5]</img> Design: Prospective cohort study; outcome assessors were blinded as to family history, however, it was impossible to blind data collectors. ### ![Graphic][6]</img> Follow up period: Seven years. ### ![Graphic][7]</img> Setting: Amish families in rural Pennsylvania, USA; 1994 to 2000. ### ![Graphic][8]</img> People: 210 children from 27 families. 14 BPI families (100 children) had one parent with BPI. The families of same sex, psychiatrically unaffected siblings of each bipolar parent were selected as matched controls where possible. Control siblings were selected to be as close in age, marriage date, and number of children to the bipolar sibling. In the absence of a suitable matched sibling control, the family of a non-related Amish participant matched for sex, age, and family size, but without a family history of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BAcademy%2Bof%2BChild%2Band%2BAdolescent%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAm%2BAcad%2BChild%2BAdolesc%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DEgeland%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D42%26rft.issue%253D7%26rft.spage%253D786%26rft.epage%253D796%26rft.atitle%253DProspective%2Bstudy%2Bof%2Bprodromal%2Bfeatures%2Bfor%2Bbipolarity%2Bin%2Bwell%2BAmish%2Bchildren.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1097%252F01.CHI.0000046878.27264.12%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12819438%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.CHI.0000046878.27264.12&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12819438&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F1%2F26.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183750800009&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".