Meta-analysis of the Interval between the Onset and Management of Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the length of the interval between the onset and the initial management of bipolar disorder (BD). Method: We conducted a meta-analysis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Systematic searches located studies reporting estimates of the age of onset (AOO) and indicators of the age at initial management of BD. We calculated a pooled estimate of the interval between AOO and age at management. Factors influencing between-study heterogeneity were investigated using sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and multiple meta-regression. Results: Twenty-seven studies, reporting 51 samples and a total of 9415 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimate for the interval between the onset of BD and its management was 5.8 years (standardized difference, .53; 95% confidence interval, .45 to .62). There was very high between-sample heterogeneity ( I 2 = 92.6; Q = 672). A longer interval was found in studies that defined the onset according to the first episode (compared to onset of symptoms or illness) and defined management as age at diagnosis (rather than first treatment or first hospitalization). A longer interval was reported among more recently published studies, among studies that used a systematic method to establish the chronology of illness, among studies with a smaller proportion of bipolar I patients, and among studies with an earlier mean AOO. Conclusions: There is currently little consistency in the way researchers report the AOO and initial management of BD. However, the large interval between onset and management of BD presents an opportunity for earlier intervention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".