Do current national and international guidelines have specific recommendations for older adults with bipolar disorder? A brief report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Older adults with bipolar disorder (OABD) are a growing segment of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) for which specific guidelines are warranted. Although, OABD are frequently excluded from randomized controlled trials due to their age or somatic comorbidity, more treatment data from a variety of sources have become available in recent years. It is expected that at least some of this emerging information on OABD would be incorporated into treatment guidelines available to clinicians around the world. METHODS: The International Society of Bipolar Disorders OABD task force compiled and compared recommendations from current national and international guidelines that specifically address geriatric or older individuals with BD (from year 2005 onwards). RESULTS: There were 34 guidelines, representing six continents and 19 countries. The majority of guidelines had no separate section on OABD. General principles for treating OABD with medication are recommended to be similar to those for younger adults, with special caution for side effects due to somatic comorbidity and concomitant medications. Therapeutic lithium serum levels are suggested to be lower but recommendations are very general and mostly not informed by specific research evidence. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of emphasis of OABD-specific issues in existing guidelines. Given the substantial clinical heterogeneity in BD across the life span, along with the rapidly expanding population of older individuals worldwide, and limited mental health workforce with geriatric expertise, it is critical that additional effort and resources be devoted to studying treatment interventions specific to OABD and that treatment guidelines reflect research findings. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.028 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".