Can network analysis shed light on predictors of lithium response in bipolar I disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To undertake a large-scale clinical study of predictors of lithium (Li) response in bipolar I disorder (BD-I) and apply contemporary multivariate approaches to account for inter-relationships between putative predictors. METHODS: We used network analysis to estimate the number and strength of connections between potential predictors of good Li response (measured by a new scoring algorithm for the Retrospective Assessment of Response to Lithium Scale) in 900 individuals with BD-I recruited to the Consortium of Lithium Genetics. RESULTS: After accounting for co-associations between potential predictors, the most important factors associated with the good Li response phenotype were panic disorder, manic predominant polarity, manic first episode, age at onset between 15-32 years and family history of BD. Factors most strongly linked to poor outcome were comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcohol and/or substance misuse, and/or psychosis (symptoms or syndromes). CONCLUSIONS: Network analysis can offer important additional insights to prospective studies of predictors of Li treatment outcomes. It appears to especially help in further clarifying the role of family history of BD (i.e. its direct and indirect associations) and highlighting the positive and negative associations of different subtypes of anxiety disorders with Li response, particularly the little-known negative association between Li response and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".