A report on older‐age bipolar disorder from the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the coming generation, older adults with bipolar disorder (BD) will increase in absolute numbers as well as proportion of the general population. This is the first report of the International Society for Bipolar Disorder (ISBD) Task Force on Older-Age Bipolar Disorder (OABD). METHODS: This task force report addresses the unique aspects of OABD including epidemiology and clinical features, neuropathology and biomarkers, physical health, cognition, and care approaches. RESULTS: The report describes an expert consensus summary on OABD that is intended to advance the care of patients, and shed light on issues of relevance to BD research across the lifespan. Although there is still a dearth of research and health efforts focused on older adults with BD, emerging data have brought some answers, innovative questions, and novel perspectives related to the notion of late onset, medical comorbidity, and the vexing issue of cognitive impairment and decline. CONCLUSIONS: Improving our understanding of the biological, clinical, and social underpinnings relevant to OABD is an indispensable step in building a complete map of BD across the lifespan.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".