Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: consensus and controversies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the previous publication of Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) guidelines in 1997, there has been a substantial increase in evidence-based treatment options for bipolar disorder. The present guidelines review the new evidence and use criteria to rate strength of evidence and incorporate effectiveness, safety, and tolerability data to determine global clinical recommendations for treatment of various phases of bipolar disorder. The guidelines suggest that although pharmacotherapy forms the cornerstone of management, utilization of adjunctive psychosocial treatments and incorporation of chronic disease management model involving a healthcare team are required in providing optimal management for patients with bipolar disorder. Lithium, valproate and several atypical antipsychotics are first-line treatments for acute mania. Bipolar depression and mixed states are frequently associated with suicidal acts; therefore assessment for suicide should always be an integral part of managing any bipolar patient. Lithium, lamotrigine or various combinations of antidepressant and mood-stabilizing agents are first-line treatments for bipolar depression. First-line options in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder are lithium, lamotrigine, valproate and olanzapine. Historical and symptom profiles help with treatment selection. With the growing recognition of bipolar II disorders, it is anticipated that a larger body of evidence will become available to guide treatment of this common and disabling condition. These guidelines also discuss issues related to bipolar disorder in women and those with comorbidity and include a section on safety and monitoring.
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 | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".