Prevalence of Bipolar Disorder symptoms in Primary Care (ProBiD-PC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe the prevalence of patients who screen positive for symptoms of bipolar disorder in primary care practice using the validated Mood Disorders Questionnaire (MDQ). Design Prevalence survey. Setting Fifty-four primary care practices across Canada. Participants Adult patients presenting to their primary care practitioners for any cause and reporting, during the course of their visits, current or previous symptoms of depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Main outcome measures Subjects were screened for symptoms suggestive of bipolar disorder using the MDQ. Health-related quality of life, functional impairment, and work productivity were evaluated using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey and Sheehan Disability Scale. Results A total of 1416 patients were approached to participate in this study, and 1304 completed the survey. Of these, 27.9% screened positive for symptoms of bipolar disorder. All 13 items of the MDQ were significantly associated with screening positive for bipolar disorder ( P < .05). Patients screening positive were significantly more likely to report depression, anxiety, substance use, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, family history of bipolar disorder, or suicide attempts than patients screening negative were ( P < .001). Health-related quality of life, work or school productivity, and social and family functioning were all significantly worse in patients who screened positive ( P < .001). Conclusion This prevalence survey suggests that more than a quarter of patients presenting to primary care with past or current psychiatric indices are at risk of bipolar disorder. Patients exhibiting a cluster of these symptoms should be further questioned on family history of bipolar disorder and suicide attempts, and selectively screened for symptoms suggestive of bipolar disorder using the quick and high-yielding MDQ.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".