Stability of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder - long-term follow-up of 346 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and stability of long-term lithium treatment in a prospective, international, multicenter cohort of bipolar patients in a naturalistic setting. METHODS: Patients were selected according to DSM IV criteria for bipolar disorder and required long-term treatment. They were prospectively followed and documented in five centers belonging to the International Group for the Study of Lithium-Treated Patients. This was a prospective cohort study without a comparison group. Lithium treatment was administered in a naturalistic and specialized outpatient setting. All patients underwent a comprehensive psychiatric examination, which included the use of standard rating scales, as well as an evaluation of clinical course based on the morbidity index (MI). Wald tests were used to assess the significance of fixed effects and covariates when analyzing the relationship between depressive, manic, and total morbidity index and several characteristics of illness course. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 346 patients with bipolar disorder I or II were followed for a mean period of 10.0 years (standard deviation (SD) 6.2, range 1 to 20). The morbidity index remained stable over time: the mean MI was 0.125 (SD 0.299) in year 1 and 0.110 (SD 0.267) in year 20. The MI was not associated with the duration of lithium treatment, the number or frequency of episodes prior to treatment, or latency from the onset of bipolar disorder to the start of lithium treatment. The drop-out rate was high over the study period. Our findings suggest that long-term response to lithium maintenance treatment remains stable over time.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".