MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096879401 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.8.2.46

Risk of dementia in people with depressive and bipolar disorders increases with increasing number of prior affective episodes

2005· letter· en· W2096879401 on OpenAlexaff
Robert van Reekum

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderDementiaPsychiatryMedicinePediatricsInternal medicineDiseaseLithium (medication)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kessing LV, Andersen PK. Does the risk of developing dementia increase with the number of episodes in patients with depressive disorder and in patients with bipolar disorder? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75:1662–6.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Does an increasing number of prior affective episodes increase the risk of developing dementia in people with depressive and bipolar disorders? ### ![Graphic][3] Design: Cohort study. ### ![Graphic][4] Follow up period: 14 years. ### ![Graphic][5] Setting: Denmark from 1970 to 1999. ### ![Graphic][6] People: 18 726 people with depressive disorder (ICD-8) and 4248 people with bipolar disorder (ICD-10). Inclusions: people who at their first discharge from a psychiatric hospital after 1 January 1970 had a diagnosis of primary affective disorder. Main exclusions: diagnosis of organic psychosis or schizophrenia at discharge before 1 January 1986. ### ![Graphic][7] Risk factors: The Denmark nationwide … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2BNeurology%252C%2BNeurosurgery%2B%2526%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DJ.%2BNeurol.%2BNeurosurg.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DKessing%26rft.auinit1%253DL%2BV%26rft.volume%253D75%26rft.issue%253D12%26rft.spage%253D1662%26rft.epage%253D1666%26rft.atitle%253DDoes%2Bthe%2Brisk%2Bof%2Bdeveloping%2Bdementia%2Bincrease%2Bwith%2Bthe%2Bnumber%2Bof%2Bepisodes%2Bin%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2Bdepressive%2Bdisorder%2Band%2Bin%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2Bbipolar%2Bdisorder%253F%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fjnnp.2003.031773%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15548477%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=jnnp&resid=75/12/1662&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F2%2F46.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207