MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112204200 · doi:10.3390/medicina56120689

Environmental Risk Factors for Bipolar Disorders and High-Risk States in Adolescence: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3112204200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giulia Menculini, Pierfrancesco Maria Balducci, Luigi Attademo, Francesco Bernardini, Patrizia Moretti, Alfonso Tortorella

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathologyBipolar disorderClinical psychologyPsychologyScopusMEDLINEMoodSystematic reviewMood disordersPsychiatryMedicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives: A deeper comprehension of the role that environmental risk factors play in the development of adolescent Bipolar Disorder (BD), as well as in the evolution of high-risk states for BD, may entangle further prevention and treatment advances. The present systematic review is aimed at critically summarizing evidence about the role that environmental risk factors play in the development of BD in adolescence and their interaction with BD high-risk states. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE/Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science datasets were systematically searched until 4 September 2020. Original studies that reported information about the role of environmental risk factors in the development of BD during adolescence, or assessing their influence on the development of psychopathology in high-risk states for BD, were considered for inclusion. Two blind researchers performed title/abstract, full-text screening, and hand-screening of relevant references. The risk of bias was assessed by means of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Fourteen studies were included in the review. Negative stressful life events, particularly sexual and physical abuse, but also emotional mistreatment, were associated with more severe psychopathology in adolescents with BD, as well as with higher risk for developing mood disorders in BD offspring. Similar findings were detected for familial environment-related features, such as parental rejection and low perceived care, while no univocal results were found when analyzing familial functioning. Conclusions: The present systematic review confirmed the relevant role that environmental risk factors, particularly negative stressful live events and family-related features, play in the development of BD psychopathology during adolescence. Future studies are expected to clarify possible further environmental factors that may be implicated in the development of BD during youth that may serve as target of prevention and early treatment strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207