Is bipolar disorder specifically associated with aggression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have suggested that bipolar disorder (BP) in adults is associated with aggressive behaviors. However, most studies have included only inpatients and have not taken into consideration possible confounding factors. The goal of the present study was to compare the prevalence of aggression in subjects with BP compared to subjects with other, non-BP psychopathology and healthy controls. METHODS: Subjects with bipolar I disorder (BP-I) and bipolar II disorder (BP-II) (n = 255), non-BP psychopathology (n = 85), and healthy controls (n = 84) were recruited. Aggression was measured using the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ). Group comparisons were adjusted for demographic and clinical differences (e.g., comorbid disorders) and multiple comparisons. The effects of the subtype of BP, current versus past episode, polarity of current episode, psychosis, the presence of irritable mania/hypomania only, and pharmacological treatment were examined. RESULTS: Subjects with BP showed significantly higher total and subscale AQ scores (raw and T-scores) when compared to subjects with non-BP psychopathology and healthy controls. Exclusion of subjects with current mood episodes and those with common comorbid disorders yielded similar results. There were no effects of BP subtype, polarity of the current episode, irritable manic/hypomanic episodes only, or current use of pharmacological treatments. Independent of the severity of BP and polarity of the episode, those in a current mood episode showed significantly higher AQ scores than those not in a current mood episode. Subjects with current psychosis showed significantly higher total AQ score, hostility, and anger than those without current psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with BP display greater rates of anger and aggressive behaviors, especially during acute and psychotic episodes. Early identification and management of these behaviors is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".