Quality of life in patients with bipolar I depression: data from 920 patients
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of acute depression on quality of life (QOL) in patients with bipolar I disorder and to compare these results with published data on QOL in patients with unipolar depression. METHODS: Quality of life was assessed using the SF-36 in bipolar patients (n = 958) who had recently experienced an episode of acute bipolar depression and participated in a large randomized, double-blind, safety and efficacy trial. Seven studies that included SF-36 data from patients with unipolar depression were identified in the published literature and descriptive comparisons of SF-36 scores were made between the unipolar depression trials and this bipolar depression trial. RESULTS: There were 920 patients who completed the SF-36. Mean transformed scores, which could range from 0 to 100, were very low in bipolar depressed patients for the role-physical (36.7), vitality (22.4), social functioning (29.9), role-emotion (11.4), and mental health (31.0) subscales. Mean SF-36 scores for all subscales were significantly and inversely correlated (p < 0.0001) with the HAM-D indicating that patients with milder depressive symptoms had better QOL. Further, the mean SF-36 scores for the bipolar sample were consistently lower compared with published data on QOL in unipolar depression on four of the eight subscales: general health; social functioning; role-physical, and role-emotional. CONCLUSIONS: While both unipolar and bipolar depression have serious detrimental effects on patient QOL, our results suggest that some aspects of QOL may be worse in bipolar depression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it