Does prophylaxis‐delay in bipolar disorder influence outcome? Results from a long‐term study of 147 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of latency (the time between illness onset and initiation of prophylactic treatment) on the outcome of prophylaxis in bipolar disorders. METHOD: The effect of prophylaxis delay (latency) on the course of illness was assessed in 147 patients. Dependent variables were: reduction of days spent in the hospital (prior to vs. during prophylaxis), time to first recurrence, and Morbidity-Index during prophylaxis (lithium or carbamazepine). Latency and other independent variables were tested using a multivariate approach. RESULTS: Latency (9.3 years on average) had no significant effect on the subsequent response. Illness severity prior to prophylaxis, however, did predict the relative response. The course of illness during treatment could not be predicted by any one factor. CONCLUSION: The delay in initiating prophylaxis appears to have no influence on prophylaxis outcome. Instead, those whose illness was more severe were treated earlier and these patients subsequently showed a relatively greater response. If severity is not controlled for as part of the analysis, latency may be mistaken as an important predictor for response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".