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

Pharmacologic management of bipolar-II disorder

2008· article· en· W2134319043 on OpenAlexaff
Lakshmi N. Yatham, David J. Bond

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Psychological MedicineSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207