Decreasing the minimum length criterion for an episode of hypomania: evaluation using self-reported data from patients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief hypomania lasting less than 4 days may impair functioning and help to detect bipolarity. This study analyzed brief hypomania that occurred in patients with bipolar disorder who were diagnosed according to the DSM-IV criteria. Daily self-reported mood ratings were obtained from 393 patients (247 bipolar I and 146 bipolar II) for 6 months (75,284 days of data, mean 191.6 days). Episodes of hypomania were calculated using a 4, 3, 2, and single day length criterion. Brief hypomania occurred frequently. With a decrease in the minimum criterion from 4 days to 2 days, there were almost twice as many patients with an episode of hypomania (102 vs. 190), and more than twice as many episodes (305 vs. 863). Single days of hypomania were experienced by 271 (69%) of the sample. With a 2-day episode length, 33% of all hypomania remained outside of an episode. There was no significant difference in the percent of hypomanic days outside of an episode between patients with bipolar I and II disorders. There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of patients who met the 4-day minimum as compared with those who only experienced episodes of hypomania using a shortened length criterion. Decreasing the minimum length criterion for an episode of hypomania will cause a large increase in the number of patients who experience an episode and in the aggregate number of episodes, but will not distinguish subgroups within a sample who meet the DSM-IV criteria for bipolar disorder. Frequency may be an important dimensional aspect of brief hypomania. Clinicians should regularly probe for brief hypomania.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".