Delphi survey of maintenance lithium treatment in older adults with bipolar disorder: An ISBD task force report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the growing numbers and proportion of older adults with bipolar disorder (OABD), there are very limited guidelines for the use of lithium with its double-edged potential for effectiveness and toxicity in this population. The primary aims of this Delphi survey were: (a) To determine the place of lithium among the preferred choices for maintenance treatment of OABD. (b) To provide detailed clinical guidelines for the safe and effective use of lithium in OABD. METHODS: In the face of limited evidence, the Delphi survey method was used to achieve consensus by a group of 25 experts in OABD from nine countries. An oversight committee monitored and analyzed the results of each survey and formulated more focused questions with each subsequent iteration. RESULTS: A 100% response rate was achieved for all three iterations of the survey. Lithium was the preferred choice for maintenance monotherapy in OABD. Serum levels of 0.4-0.8 mmol/L were recommended for ages 60-79 and serum levels of 0.4-0.7 mmol/L were recommended for ages 80 and over. Specific recommendations achieved consensus for second line monotherapy as well as for other drugs to be used in combination with lithium if necessary. Guidelines for routine monitoring of lithium in OABD were provided for laboratory investigations and clinical assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Lithium remains the preferred choice for maintenance monotherapy in OABD. Laboratories should report the therapeutic range for serum levels of lithium separately for older adults.
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 | 0.055 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".