A Systematic Review of Nutraceuticals for the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Certain nutrient supplements (nutraceuticals) may target neurobiological pathways perturbed in bipolar disorder (BD) such as inflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction. Nutraceuticals thus may have a potential role as adjunctive treatments for BD. Methods: A search of Embase via embase.com, PubMed via PubMed, Cumulated index to nursing and allied health literature (CINAHL) Complete via EBSCO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials via cochranelibrary.com was conducted to identify published randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of nutraceuticals on mood symptomatology in adults with BD. Search terms for BD, nutraceuticals, and clinical trials (total search terms = 75) were used to search from inception to February 20, 2020. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: A total of 1,712 studies were identified through the search. After rigorous screening, 22 studies were included in the review. There was large variability across the studies with 15 different nutraceutical agents assessed and as such insufficient homogeneity for a meta-analysis to be conducted ( I 2 > 50%). Studies revealed promising, albeit conflicting, evidence for omega-3 fatty acids and N-acetylcysteine. Isolated positive results were reported for coenzyme Q10. Conclusion: Given nutraceuticals are tolerable and accessible, they may be useful as potential adjunctive treatments for BD. Nutraceuticals targeting neuroinflammation or mitochondrial activity may have the most potential for the depressive phase. However, further studies are required to determine efficacy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".