Prevalence and Correlates of Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder Among Adolescents with Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and correlates of disruptive mood dysregulation disorder phenotype (DMDDP) in a clinical population of adolescents with bipolar disorder (BD). METHODS: DMDD criteria were modified and applied to a sample of 116 adolescents with BD-I (n = 30), BD-II (n = 46) or BD-not otherwise specified (NOS) (n = 40) from a tertiary teaching hospital. Diagnoses were determined via the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Aged Children, Present and Lifetime version (KSADS-PL). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) DMDD Criteria A-G were derived from the KSADS oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) screening interview and supplement, as well as narrative summaries. Chi-square analyses or t tests (p < 0.05) were conducted as appropriate, followed by logistic regression. P values were adjusted using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach. RESULTS: DMDDP criteria could not be determined for 8 adolescents because of missing data from the ODD supplement. Twenty-five percent of the remainder (27/108) met criteria for DMDDP. DMDDP was not associated with BD subtype or with family history of BD. In univariate analyses, after controlling for age, sex, and race, DMDDP was associated with lower functioning, increased family conflict, assault history, and attention deficit and/or hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (FDR adjusted p values: <0.0001, < 0.0001, 0.007, and 0.007, respectively). Lifetime substance use disorder and medication use approached significance (adjusted p = 0.05). In logistic regression, DMDDP was independently associated with greater parent-reported family conflict (odds ratio [OR] 1.17; confidence interval [CI- 1.06-1.30; p = 0.001) and greater functional impairment (OR 0.89; CI 0.82-0.97; p = 0.006). DMDDP was also associated with a threefold increase in ADHD, although ADHD was only marginally significant (OR 3.3; CI 0.98-10.94; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the positioning of DMDD as phenotypically and biologically distinct from BD, these phenotypes commonly overlap in clinical settings. This overlap is not explained by BD-NOS or by nonfamilial BD. The association of ADHD with DMDDP in this sample draws into question whether arousal symptoms should have been retained as originally elaborated in the severe mood dysregulation phenotype. Strategies to mitigate the excessive functional impairment of this comorbidity are 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".