National Differences in the Prevalence of Depressive Symptoms in Mania: a Naturalistic Study Using the Dsm-5 ‘with Mixed Features’ Specifier M.I.N.I. Module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In bipolar I disorder (BD1), manic episodes with depressive symptoms are generally more severe than pure manic episodes, but are not easily identified. The DSM-5 ‘With Mixed Features’ specifier, and accompanying patient-rated Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) module, were designed to aid diagnosis. To examine patients with BD1 who have mania with depressive symptoms, across countries. To improve the identification of depressive symptoms during a BD1 manic episode. This naturalistic study surveyed psychiatrists and their patients with BD1 (manic episode within previous 3 months), in Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Turkey, Australia, Brazil and Canada. Psychiatrists provided information on depressive symptoms (DSM-5 ‘With Mixed Features’ specifier plus patient-rated M.I.N.I. module); anxiety, irritability, and agitation; suicide attempts; and treatment response. Of 1,035 bipolar patients, 34% had mania ‘With Mixed Features’(≥05;3 depressive symptoms), and displayed more severe symptoms, and higher rates of attempted suicide than patients without mixed features. Across countries, severe anxiety occurred in 3.5–19.5% of patients; severe irritability in 4.3–17.0%; and severe agitation in 4.3–19.6%. The proportion of patients experiencing ‘prominent dysphoria or depressed mood’ was highest in Italy (64.2%). Recurrent suicidal ideation ranged from 8.0% (Germany) to 25.7% (Spain); lifetime rate of attempted suicide was highest in Canada (64.7%). Between-country differences were also reflected in the M.I.N.I. module outcomes. Patients with BD1 ‘With Mixed Features’, suffer from a greater burden of disease than patients with pure mania, and there is variation between countries – as detected by physician and patient evaluations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".