MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134319043 · doi:10.4103/0253-7176.43130

Pharmacologic management of bipolar-II disorder

2008· article· en· W2134319043 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Psychological Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryLithium (medication)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Byline: David. Bond, Lakshmi. Yatham According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4[sup] th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)[sup] [1], bipolar II disorder (BDII) consists of recurrent episodes of depression and hypomania. Although the lifetime prevalence of BDII remains a matter of debate, with some studies reporting rates as high as 5% [sup] [2], most epidemiological surveys suggest a prevalence of 1%-2% [sup] [3],[4] .[sup] This makes BDII at least as common as bipolar I disorder (BDI), which has a lifetime prevalence of 1% [sup] [4] .[sup] BDII is sometimes viewed as a form of bipolar illness, but this is a misconception, as it is associated with rates of disability that are comparable to BDI [sup] [5] .[sup] As well, BDII may have the highest frequency of suicidal behaviour of any mood disorder[sup] [6] . Although BDII is defined by the occurrence of hypomania, for many patients it appears to be a predominantly depressive illness. Studies in treated samples demonstrate that BDII patients spend approximately half of their lives with depressive symptoms [sup] [7],[8] ,[sup] In fact, BDII is likely the most common cause of depression after major depressive disorder, with studies suggesting that 18.5% of family practice patients with depression and 40% of depressed patients in psychiatric specialty settings suffer from BDII [sup] [9],[10] . This[sup] is indicative of both the frequency of depressive symptoms, and the possibility that depressions do not respond as well to treatment as hypomanias. Hypomanias, in contrast to depressions, are often brief and are not uncommonly associated with minimal to mild disability[sup] [2],[5] . The frequency and severity of depression in BDII, coupled with the difficulties inherent in retrospectively ascertaining a history of hypomania, commonly lead to the misdiagnosis of BDII as major depressive disorder (MDD). To avoid this pitfall, clinicians should be finely attuned to the possibility of BDII as a cause of depression, and must be rigorous in screening all depressed patients for a history of hypomania. Furthermore, it is important to be aware of a number of barriers to the diagnosis of hypomania. First, patients and their families often do not recognize hypomania as a pathological state, and they frequently do not volunteer a history of hypomanic symptoms. Second, although the DSM-IV-TR requires a 4-day duration of symptoms to diagnose hypomania, hypomania is frequently briefer, with some studies suggesting a median duration of 1-3 days[sup] [2] .[sup] Thus, in addition to thoroughly screening patients for hypomanic symptoms, we have found a number of clinical tools useful in making the diagnosis. These include obtaining collateral history from family members; having patients keep daily mood diaries; and also having them complete the Mood Disorders Questionnaire (MDQ), a 13-item self reported questionnaire with queries about common hypomanic symptoms [sup] [11] .[sup] Although the MDQ has not been as rigorously studied as a screening instrument in BDII as it has in BDI, our clinical experience suggests that it can be a helpful diagnostic aid. Finally, the value of long-term follow-up cannot be overstated, as hypomanic symptoms often become obvious during long-term follow-up. Partly as a result of difficulties in making the correct diagnosis, the prevalence of hypomania has until recently been underestimated, and its treatment consequently understudied. Lacking an adequate evidence base, physicians are sometimes left with no alternative but to make treatment decisions for BDII patients based on the results of BDI studies. However, genetic [sup] [12] ,[sup] family history [sup] [13] ,[sup] and long-term follow-up studies [sup] [14] clearly indicate that BDI and BDII are distinct illnesses. More importantly, a number of clinical trials suggest that BDII patients may respond quite differently to mood stabilizing medications [sup] [15],[16],[17] and antidepressants [sup] [18] compared to patients with BDI. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it