Bipolar depression: criteria for treatment selection, definition of refractoriness, and treatment options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews controlled studies of bipolar depression, outlines criteria for choosing treatment, defines refractoriness in bipolar depression, and provides options for treatment of refractory bipolar depression. METHODS: Controlled studies that examined the efficacy of treatments for acute and long-term treatment of bipolar depression were located through electronic searches of several databases and by manual crosssearch of references and proceedings of international meetings. RESULTS: Lithium comes close to fulfilling the proposed criteria for first-line treatment for bipolar depression, and those not responding to lithium should be considered to have refractory bipolar depression. Options for such patients include addition of lamotrigine or a second mood stabilizer, or a newer-generation antidepressant such as a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor or bupropion, or the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a paucity of research in the treatment of refractory bipolar depression, available data could be used for providing rational treatment options for such patients. However, further studies are urgently needed to determine which options are most appropriate for which type of patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".