Is Response to Prophylactic Lithium a Familial Trait?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selecting a drug according to the treatment response in a relative has been widely accepted advice in the management of mood disorders. However, this recommendation has not been adequately substantiated in the literature. We tested the hypothesis that response to long-term lithium treatment is a familial trait. METHOD: We compared response to long-term lithium treatment in bipolar relatives of bipolar lithium responders and bipolar controls. Twenty-four relatives with bipolar disorder (as determined using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Lifetime version [SADS-L] and Research Diagnostic Criteria [RDC]) were identified in families of 106 patients with lithium-responsive bipolar disorder. A consecutive series of 40 lithium-treated patients in a bipolar clinic (meeting RDC and DSM-IV criteria for bipolar disorder) served as a comparison group. Lithium response was evaluated on a rating scale reflecting the quality and quantity of available data. RESULTS: The prevalence of unequivocal response among the relatives was 67%, as compared with the response rate of 35% in the comparison group (chi2 = 6.04, df = 1, p = .014). CONCLUSION: This highly significant difference in response between relatives and the control group supports the view that the response to lithium prophylaxis clusters in families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".