MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neurobiological Evidence for the Primacy of Mania Hypothesis

2016· review· en· W2473276417 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Neuropharmacology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManiaBipolar disorderPsycINFOIllusionPsychologyConsistency (knowledge bases)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisCognitionCognitive psychologyMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.362
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.123 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it