Sex Differences in the Longitudinal Course and Outcome of Bipolar Disorder in Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite substantial literature on sex differences in adults with bipolar disorder (BD), little is known about this topic in youth; this study examines sex differences in mood symptomatology and psychiatric comorbidity in prospectively followed youth with BD. METHODS: A subsample of the Course and Outcome of Bipolar Youth study (N = 370; female n = 199, male n = 171) enrolled October 2000-July 2006 (age at intake = 7-17.11 years) who met DSM-IV criteria for bipolar I disorder (BD-I; n = 221), bipolar II disorder (BD-II; n = 26), or operationalized BD not otherwise specified (BD-NOS; n = 123) with ≥ 4 years follow-up was included. Analyses examined sex differences at intake and, prospectively, in mood symptomatology and psychiatric comorbidity for a mean ± SD follow-up of 10.5 ± 1.72 years. RESULTS: Females were older than males at intake (mean ± SD age = 13.33 ± 3.32 vs 12.04 ± 3.16 years; P = .0002) and at age at mood onset (9.33 ± 4.22 vs 7.53 ± 3.74 years; P < .0001). After adjustment for confounders, males spent more time with syndromal ADHD (Padjusted = .001) and females spent more time with syndromal anxiety (Padjusted = .02). There were trends toward males spending more time with substance use disorder and females having more non-suicidal self-injurious behavior (Padjusted = .07 and .09, respectively). There were no sex differences on outcome variables, including rate of or time to recovery and recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Contrasting with adult literature, this study identified minimal sex differences in the course of youth with BD. Longer-term studies are needed to clarify if youth-onset BD remains a "sex neutral" subtype of BD or diverges according to sex in adulthood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".