Epigenetics in bipolar disorder: a critical review of the literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic, disabling disease characterised by alternate mood episodes, switching through depressive and manic/hypomanic phases. Mood stabilizers, in particular lithium salts, constitute the cornerstone of the treatment in the acute phase as well as for the prevention of recurrences. The pathophysiology of BD and the mechanisms of action of mood stabilizers remain largely unknown but several pieces of evidence point to gene x environment interactions. Epigenetics, defined as the regulation of gene expression without genetic changes, could be the molecular substrate of these interactions. In this literature review, we summarize the main epigenetic findings associated with BD and response to mood stabilizers. METHODS: We searched PubMed, and Embase databases and classified the articles depending on the epigenetic mechanisms (DNA methylation, histone modifications and non-coding RNAs). RESULTS: We present the different epigenetic modifications associated with BD or with mood-stabilizers. The major reported mechanisms were DNA methylation, histone methylation and acetylation, and non-coding RNAs. Overall, the assessments are poorly harmonized and the results are more limited than in other psychiatric disorders (e.g. schizophrenia). However, the nature of BD and its treatment offer excellent opportunities for epigenetic research: clear impact of environmental factors, clinical variation between manic or depressive episodes resulting in possible identification of state and traits biomarkers, documented impact of mood-stabilizers on the epigenome. CONCLUSION: Epigenetic is a growing and promising field in BD that may shed light on its pathophysiology or be useful as biomarkers of response to mood-stabilizer.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it