Does age at onset have clinical significance in older adults with bipolar disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While age at onset may be useful in explaining some of the heterogeneity of bipolar disorder (BD) in large, mixed age groups, investigations to date have found few meaningful clinical differences between early versus late age at onset in older adults with BD. METHODS: Data were collected from sixty-one subjects aged 60 years and older, mean (SD) age 67.6 (7.0), with BD I (75%) and II (25%). Subjects were grouped by early (< 40 years; n = 43) versus late (≥ 40 years; n = 18) age at onset. Early versus late onset groups were compared on psychiatric comorbidity, medical burden, and percentage of days well during study participation. RESULTS: Except for family history of major psychiatric illnesses, there were no differences between the groups on demographic or clinical variables. Patients with early and late onset experienced similar percentages of days well; however, those with early onset had slightly more percentage of days depressed than those with late onset (22% versus 13%) CONCLUSION: Distinguishing older adults with BD by early or late age at onset has limited clinical usefulness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".