MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606717703 · doi:10.1192/bjpo.bp.116.004234

The association between self-reported and clinically determined hypomanic symptoms and the onset of major mood disorders

2017· article· en· W2606717703 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Goodday, Martin Preisig, Mehdi Gholam‐Rezaee, Paul Grof, Jules Angst, Anne Duffy

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCentre for Movement DisordersUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringBipolar disorderHypomaniaMoodPsychologyMood disordersPsychiatryManiaChecklistDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPregnancyAnxietyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypomanic symptoms may be a useful predictor of mood disorder among young people at high risk for bipolar disorder. AIMS: To determine whether hypomanic symptoms differentiate offspring of parents with bipolar disorder (high risk) and offspring of well parents (control) and predict the development of mood episodes. METHOD: High-risk and control offspring were prospectively assessed using semi-structured clinical interviews annually and completed the Hypomania Checklist-32 Revised (HCL-32). Clinically significant sub-threshold hypomanic symptoms (CSHS) were coded. RESULTS: =0.0002). The median onset of CSHS in high-risk offspring was 16.4 (6-31) years and was before the onset of major mood episodes. CONCLUSIONS: CSHS are precursors to major mood episodes in high-risk offspring and could identify individuals at ultra-high risk for developing bipolar disorder. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207