Early‐onset and very‐early‐onset bipolar disorder: distinct or similar clinical conditions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine differences in the clinical presentation of very-early-onset (VEO) and early-onset (EO) bipolar disorder (BD) not fully explored previously. METHODS: We selected two groups of subjects with BD from the Maritime Bipolar Registry based on age at onset of first major mood episode (VEO with onset prior to age 15 years; EO ranging from 15 to 18 years) and compared them with a reference group (onset after 18 years of age). There were 363 subjects (240 with bipolar I disorder and 123 with bipolar II disorder; mean age 44.2 ± 12.8 (SD) years), with 41 subjects in the VEO and 95 in the EO groups. RESULTS: In comparison with the EO and reference groups, more subjects in the VEO group developed major depression as an index episode (88% for the VEO group versus 61% for the EO group and 54% for the reference group), and had an unremitting clinical course (65% versus 42% and 42%, respectively), rapid cycling (54% versus 34% and 28%, respectively), and comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (17% versus 1% and 3%, respectively); a higher proportion of the VEO group had first-degree relatives with affective disorders compared with the EO and reference groups (0.41 versus 0.32 and 0.29, respectively), and they had lower scores on the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (mean scores of 64 versus 70 and 70). Overall, the EO group was similar to the reference group on most measures, except for increased suicidal behavior VEO 53%, EO 44% and reference group 25%). The results of polychotomous logistic regression also support the view that VEO BD represents a rather specific subtype of BD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the recognized correlates of early-onset BD may be driven by subjects at the lowest end of the age at onset spectrum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".