Prediction of lithium response using clinical data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Promptly establishing maintenance therapy could reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with bipolar disorder. Using a machine learning approach, we sought to evaluate whether lithium responsiveness (LR) is predictable using clinical markers. METHOD: Our data are the largest existing sample of direct interview-based clinical data from lithium-treated patients (n = 1266, 34.7% responders), collected across seven sites, internationally. We trained a random forest model to classify LR-as defined by the previously validated Alda scale-against 180 clinical predictors. RESULTS: Under appropriate cross-validation procedures, LR was predictable in the pooled sample with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI 0.78-0.82) and a Cohen kappa of 0.46 (0.4-0.51). The model demonstrated a particularly low false-positive rate (specificity 0.91 [0.88-0.92]). Features related to clinical course and the absence of rapid cycling appeared consistently informative. CONCLUSION: Clinical data can inform out-of-sample LR prediction to a potentially clinically relevant degree. Despite the relevance of clinical course and the absence of rapid cycling, there was substantial between-site heterogeneity with respect to feature importance. Future work must focus on improving classification of true positives, better characterizing between- and within-site heterogeneity, and further testing such models on new external datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 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".