Risk Calculators in Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Early recognition of bipolar disorder improves the prognosis and decreases the burden of the disease. However, there is a significant delay in diagnosis. Multiple risk factors for bipolar disorder have been identified and a population at high-risk for the disorder has been more precisely defined. These advances have allowed the development of risk calculators to predict individual risk of conversion to bipolar disorder. This review aims to identify the risk calculators for bipolar disorder and assess their clinical applicability. METHODS: A systematic review of original studies on the development of risk calculators in bipolar disorder was performed. The studies' quality was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies and according to recommendations of the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis Initiative. RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria; one developed a risk calculator of conversion from major depressive episode to bipolar disorder; one of conversion to new-onset bipolar spectrum disorders in offspring of parents with bipolar disorder; and the last one of conversion in youths with bipolar disorder not-otherwise-specified. CONCLUSIONS: The calculators reviewed in this article present good discrimination power for bipolar disorder, although future replication and validation of the models is needed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".