Metabolic profile in patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder and their unaffected first-degree relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance is twice as high in patients with bipolar disorder compared with the general population, and possibly associated with a disabling illness trajectory of bipolar disorder, an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death. Despite these detrimental effects, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in patients newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder and their unaffected first-degree relatives is largely unknown. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 206 patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder, 50 of their unaffected first-degree relatives and 109 healthy age- and sex-matched individuals, we compared the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). In patients with bipolar disorder, we further investigated illness and medication variables associated with the metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance. RESULTS: Higher rates of metabolic syndrome (odds ratio = 3.529, 95% CI 1.378-9.041, P = 0.009) and levels of insulin resistance (B = 1.203, 95% CI 1.059-1.367, P = 0.005) were found in patients newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but not in their unaffected first-degree relatives compared with matched healthy individuals (data adjusted for sex and age). Most patients with bipolar disorder (94.7%) were diagnosed within the preceding 2 years, and the average illness duration, defined as time from first mood episode, was 10 years. CONCLUSION: Our findings of elevated prevalence of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder highlight the importance of screening for these conditions at an early stage to employ adequate and early care reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".