Maintenance Pharmacological Treatment of Juvenile Bipolar Disorder: Review and Meta-Analyses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for maintenance treatment of juvenile bipolar disorder rely heavily on evidence from adult studies and relatively brief trials in juveniles, leaving uncertainties about optimal long-term treatment. We aimed to systematically review long-term treatment trials for juvenile bipolar disorder. METHODS: We analyzed data recovered by a systematic literature search using the PRISMA guidelines statement, through 2018, for peer-reviewed reports on pharmacological treatments for juvenile bipolar disorder lasting ≥24 weeks. RESULTS: Of 13 reports with 16 trials of 9 treatments (18.8% were randomized and controlled), with 1773 subjects (94.4% BD-I; ages 6.9-15.1 years), lasting 11.7 (6-22) months. Pooled clinical response rates were 66.8% (CI: 64.4-69.1) with drugs vs 60.6% (53.0-66.7) in 3 placebo-control arms. Random-effects meta-analysis of 4 controlled trials yielded pooled odds ratio (OR) = 2.88 ([0.87-9.60], P = .08) for clinical response, and OR = 7.14 ([1.12-45.6], P = .04) for nonrecurrence. Apparent efficacy ranked: combined agents >anticonvulsants ≥lithium ≥antipsychotics. Factors favoring response ranked: more attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, polytherapy, randomized controlled trial design, nonrecurrence vs response. Adverse events (incidence, 5.50%-28.5%) notably included cognitive dulling, weight-gain, and gastrointestinal symptoms; early dropout rates averaged 49.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological treatments, including anticonvulsants, lithium, and second-generation antipsychotics, may reduce long-term morbidity in juvenile bipolar disorder. However, study number, quality, and effect magnitude were limited, leaving the status of scientific support for maintenance treatment for juvenile bipolar disorder inconclusive.
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.
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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it