Characteristics of depressive and bipolar disorder patients with mixed features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess differences between subjects with vs. without mixed features in major affective disorders. METHODS: In 3099 out-patient subjects with DSM-5 major depressive disorder (MDD, n = 1921) or bipolar disorders (BD, n = 1178), we compared those with (Mx) vs. without (Non-Mx) mixed features (agitated-irritable depression or dysphoric [hypo]mania) in an index episode. RESULTS: Prevalence of Mx averaged 21.9% [CI: 20.5-23.4] overall, ranking: BD-II > BD-I > MDD, and in BD depression ≥ [hypo]mania > MDD. Mx subjects were significantly more likely than Non-Mx cases to (i) have other mixed episodes, (ii) have higher irritable and agitated ratings, (iii) have more substance abuse, (iv) switch into mixed episodes, (v) have more suicide attempts and higher suicidal ratings, (vi) change diagnosis from depression to BD, (vii) have higher hypomania scores when depressed or depression scores when [hypo]manic, (viii) be unmarried or separated with fewer children and siblings, (ix) be diagnosed more with BD than MDD, (x) be unemployed, (xi) have BD, suicide and divorce among first-degree relatives, (xii) be female, (xiii) be younger at illness-onset. Both BD and MDD Mx subjects also received antidepressants less, but antipsychotics and mood-stabilizers more, alone and in combination with antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: Mood disorder subjects with agitated-irritable depression or dysphoric [hypo]mania differed from those without such mixed features, including having a less favorable clinical course and repeated mixed episodes. They may represent a distinct and prevalent, syndromal clinical subtype with prognostic and therapeutic significance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".