10.1708/1178.13058
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Despite the great quantity of evidence supporting the efficacy of lithium in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder (BD), its use has often been limited because of issues about the management of this compound. W aimed to evaluate the use of lithium in common clinical practice and to identify possible relationships between the trend over time of serum lithium levels and clinical course of the illness. METHODS: 98 patients with bipolar I and bipolar II disorder (DSM-IV-TR) on maintenance treatment with lithium salts were recruited and followed up in a naturalistic trial at the Day Hospital of Psychiatric Clinic of Pisa. Diagnosis was confirmed using a structured interview, the SCID-I. During symptom assessment, the Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Version Scale (CGI-BP) was used. RESULTS: The sample is made up mainly of BI patients (87.8%) and lithium is used in association with anticonvulsants in 63%. Less than half of the sample (48%) presents average serum lithium levels in the therapeutic range (0.5-0.8 mEq/L); serum values of lithium within the range were seen more frequently in patients with manic/mixed episode, with manic/mixed polarity of onset, with a greater number of previous episodes, with a higher percentage of rapid cycling and in subjects treated with lithium associated with anticonvulsants. During the follow-up patients with average serum lithium levels within the therapeutic range obtained a clinical improvement in a significantly greater proportion compared to patients with average serum lithium levels lower than 0.50 mEq/L. DISCUSSION: In clinical practice, lithium is often used at doses determining serum levels at the lower limits of the therapeutic range. Preliminary data on the prospective course of the illness support the importance of maintaining serum values of lithium within the therapeutic range.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.966 | 0.970 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".