Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacotherapy is the foundation of treatment for bipolar disorder, but research suggests that adjunctive psychosocial interventions that are manualized, reproducible, time-limited, empirically supported, and strategically target a number of critical domains, can efficiently provide additional benefits. Psychoeducation as an adjunct of pharmacotherapy may be beneficial, but questions remain about the utility of this treatment for patients who are already compliant with medication treatment. Family educational interventions have demonstrated encouraging results in relapse prevention, but follow-up data are limited and application to patients who have limited social networks may be problematic. Reports on interpersonal and social rhythm therapy in patients with bipolar disorder are scarce, and what is available shows no differential effect on time to remission or relapse, but a significant impact on subsyndromal symptoms. Follow-up data suggest that patients receiving cognitive behavior therapy have significantly fewer bipolar episodes, shorter episodes, fewer hospitalizations, and less subsyndromal mood symptoms. It is unclear, however, if cognitive behavior therapy is superior to other active psychosocial treatments and whether its mechanism in patients with bipolar disorder is through changing dysfunctional cognitions or simply enhancing early symptom detection. Psychotherapies should be considered early in the course of illness to improve medication compliance and to help patients identify prodromes of relapse in order to take steps for prevention. In addition, some strategies may have a beneficial effect on residual symptoms, particularly symptoms of depression, and thus help move patients toward a more comprehensive functional recovery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".