MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906565395 · doi:10.1177/2167702618812725

Unique and Transdiagnostic Symptoms of Hypomania/Mania and Unipolar Depression

2018· article· en· W2906565395 on OpenAlexaff
Kasey Stanton, Shereen Khoo, David Watson, June Gruber, Mark Zimmerman, Lauren M. Weinstock

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychological Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypomaniaManiaBipolar disorderPsychologyIrritabilityMoodClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryProdromeDepressive symptomsBipolar II disorderAnxietyPsychosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive research has been conducted to isolate features that distinguish bipolar spectrum disorders from unipolar depression. Therefore, we identified latent symptom dimensions that are unique versus shared across these disorders by examining the joint structure of hypomanic/manic and depressive symptoms in two large samples (i.e., 647 community adults; 1,370 outpatients with unipolar depression or bipolar disorder history). Results across studies suggested that (a) many hypomanic/manic and depressive symptoms (e.g., irritability) are transdiagnostic, but also that (b) symptoms such as increased energy and euphoric mood define a latent specific positive activation dimension that appears more specific to bipolar disorder. We discuss how these results indicate that some symptoms may be more optimal to target than others when trying to distinguish bipolar disorder from unipolar depression, as well as how the identification of relatively disorder-specific symptom types may optimally guide future research on key mechanisms linked to hypomania/mania and depression.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychological ScienceSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207