Neurobiological Evidence for the Primacy of Mania Hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Athanasios Koukopoulos proposed the primacy of mania hypothesis (PoM) in a 2006 book chapter and later, in two peer-reviewed papers with Nassir Ghaemi and other collaborators. This hypothesis supports that in bipolar disorder, mania leads to depression, while depression does not lead to mania. OBJECTIVE: To identify evidence in literature that supports or falsifies this hypothesis. METHOD: We searched the medical literature (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) for peer-reviewed papers on the primacy of mania, the default mode function of the brain in normal people and in bipolar disorder patients, and on illusion superiority until 6 June, 2016. Papers resulting from searches were considered for appropriateness to our objective. We adopted the PRISMA method for our review. The search for consistency with PoM was filtered through the neurobiological results of superiority illusion studies. RESULTS: Out of a grand total of 139 records, 59 were included in our analysis. Of these, 36 were of uncertain value as to the primacy of mania hypothesis, 22 favoured it, and 1 was contrary, but the latter pooled patients in their manic and depressive phases, so to invalidate possible conclusions about its consistency with regard to PoM. All considered studies were not focused on PoM or superiority illusion, hence most of their results were, as expected, unrelated to the circuitry involved in superiority illusion. A considerable amount of evidence is consistent with the hypothesis, although indirectly so. LIMITATIONS: Only few studies compared manic with depressive phases, with the majority including patients in euthymia. CONCLUSION: It is possible that humans have a natural tendency for elation/optimism and positive self-consideration, that are more akin to mania; the depressive state could be a consequence of frustrated or unsustainable mania. This would be consistent with PoM.
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 | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".