MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081297287 · doi:10.1097/yco.0b013e328341352c

Response to treatment in bipolar disorder

2010· review· en· W2081297287 on OpenAlexafffund
Cristiana Cruceanu, Martin Alda, Guy A. Rouleau, Gustavo Turecki

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalDalhousie UniversityMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBipolar disorderNeurosciencePsychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bipolar disorder is a complex psychiatric condition that has been shown to carry a great degree of genetic loading. This review addresses current research in the genetics of treatment response in bipolar disorder, with a focus on findings that have shaped our understanding of the changing direction of this field in light of recent technological advancements. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent publications in bipolar disorder treatment response have helped consolidate or improve upon knowledge of susceptibility loci and genes in the field. There seems to be an increasing trend toward functionally assessing the role played by putative candidate genes and molecular factors modulating expression in bipolar disorder, as well as a movement toward more global, pathway and genome-wide-oriented research. SUMMARY: Genetic and molecular research to date in bipolar disorder treatment response has not completely answered all the lingering questions in the field, but has contributed to the development of a more patient-based understanding of treatment. In order to apply these findings at a clinical level, more comprehensive treatment response studies are imperative, combining recent advances in high-throughput genomics with functional molecular research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207