Measuring circadian function in bipolar disorders: Empirical and conceptual review of physiological, actigraphic, and self‐report approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interest in biological clock pathways in bipolar disorders (BD) continues to grow, but there has yet to be an audit of circadian measurement tools for use in BD research and practice. PROCEDURE: The International Society for Bipolar Disorders Chronobiology Task Force conducted a critical integrative review of circadian methods that have real-world applicability. Consensus discussion led to the selection of three domains to review-melatonin assessment, actigraphy, and self-report. RESULTS: Measurement approaches used to quantify circadian function in BD are described in sufficient detail for researchers and clinicians to make pragmatic decisions about their use. A novel integration of the measurement literature is offered in the form of a provisional taxonomy distinguishing between circadian measures (the instruments and methods used to quantify circadian function, such as dim light melatonin onset) and circadian constructs (the biobehavioral processes to be measured, such as circadian phase). CONCLUSIONS: Circadian variables are an important target of measurement in clinical practice and biomarker research. To improve reproducibility and clinical application of circadian constructs, an informed systematic approach to measurement is required. We trust that this review will decrease ambiguity in the literature and support theory-based consideration of measurement options.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".