A Review of the Evidence Base for Nutrition and Nutritional Supplements in Older Adults with Bipolar Disorder: A report from the OABD task force.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To better understand the role of nutrition in older adults (aged 50 years or older) with bipolar disorders (OABD), we conducted a systematic review of the literature and appraise existing evidence. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched databases including Medline/PubMed, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Register, FDA website, and clinical trial registries through 2019 for eligible reports. The search string combined MeSH terms for bipolar disorder, nutrition and older adults. This was supplemented by snowball searching of references in relevant studies and authors were contacted to request their work where necessary. All included studies were rated with the National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment Tools based on study designs. RESULTS: Of 2280 papers screened, ten studies including eight observational and two interventional studies. The topic foci of the papers examined several nutrients, (including vitamin B12, vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, homocysteine, and folate), nutritional deficiencies and biochemical correlates. The prevalence rates of deficiencies varied with specific nutrients (3.7% to 71.6% for Vitamin B12 and 34.6% for Vitamin D), and between inpatient versus outpatient populations. While nutritional interventions appeared to be associated with improvement in both affective and cognitive outcomes, the sample sizes of OABD varied and were generally small. CONCLUSION: While there is evidence for the benefits of nutritional interventions on affective, cognitive and overall outcome in OABD, the quality of the evidence is limited. Our findings underscore the need for high quality studies to inform evidence-based guidelines for nutritional assessment and supplemention in OABD.
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 | 0.030 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".