Is the Concept of Delirious Mania Valid in the Elderly? A Case Report and a Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delirious mania has been well recognized in the published literature and in the clinic. Over the years there has been refinement of understanding of its clinical features, course, and treatment. The literature suggests that delirious mania should be considered in individuals who present with a constellation of sudden onset delirium, mania, and psychosis. However, delirious mania is not recognized under a formal classification system nor are there any formal guidelines for its treatment. We, as such, question if the concept of delirious mania in the elderly is valid. We present a case of an elderly man with marked features of delirium with minimal manic or psychotic features who had a previous diagnosis of bipolar I disorder. On thorough clinical assessments no identifiable cause of his delirium was found. We therefore considered his presentation to be more likely due to delirious mania. Electroconvulsive therapy was considered and offered to which he responded very well. We invite the reader to consider whether delirious mania is a valid concept in the elderly, where features of delirium may be more prominent than manic or psychotic features.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".