The International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology (CINP) treatment guidelines for Bipolar disorder in adults (CINP-BD-2017), part 3: The clinical guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The current paper introduces the actual International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology clinical guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Concept and structure of the guidelines: The current clinical guidelines are based on evidence-based data, but they also intend to be clinically useful, while a rigid algorithm was developed on the basis of firm evidence alone. Monotherapy was prioritized over combination therapy. There are separate recommendations for each of the major phases of bipolar disorder expressed as a 5-step algorithm. Discussion: The current International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology clinical guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder are the most up-to-date guidance and are as evidence based as possible. They also include recommendations concerning the use of psychotherapeutic interventions, again on the basis of available evidence. This adherence of the workgroup to the evidence in a clinically oriented way helped to clarify the role of specific antidepressants and traditional agents like lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine. The additional focus on specific clinical characteristics, including predominant polarity, mixed features, and rapid cycling, is also a novel approach. Many issues need further studies, data are sparse and insufficient, and many questions remain unanswered. The most important and still unmet need is to merge all the guidelines that concern different phases of the illness into a single one and in this way consider BD as a single unified disorder, which is the real world fact. However, to date the research data do not permit such a unified approach.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".