MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116575148 · doi:10.1111/bdi.13034

Prospectively ascertained mania and hypomania among young adults with child‐ and adolescent‐onset bipolar disorder

2020· article· en· W3116575148 on OpenAlexaff
Danella Hafeman, Tina R. Goldstein, Michael Strober, John Merranko, Mary Kay Gill, Fangzi Liao, Rasim Somer Diler, Neal D. Ryan, Benjamin I. Goldstein, David Axelson, Martin B. Keller, Jeffrey Hunt, Heather Hower, Lauren M. Weinstock, Shirley Yen, Boris Birmaher

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsHypomaniaManiaBipolar disorderPsychologyPsychiatryLongitudinal studyClinical psychologyMedicineMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: While adults with bipolar disorder (BD) often report symptoms starting in childhood, continuity of mania and/or hypomania (mania/hypomania) from childhood to adulthood has been questioned. Using longitudinal data from the Course and Outcome of Bipolar Youth (COBY) study, we assessed threshold mania/hypomania in young adults who manifested BD as youth. METHODS: COBY is a naturalistic, longitudinal study of 446 youth with BD (84% recruited from outpatient clinics), 7-17 years old at intake, and over 11 years of follow-up. Focusing on youth with BD-I/II (n = 297), we examined adult mania/hypomania risk (>18 years old; mean 7.9 years of follow-up) according to child (<13 years old) versus adolescent (13-17 years old) onset. We next used penalized regression to test demographic and clinical predictors of young adult mania/hypomania. RESULTS: Most participants (64%) had child-onset mania/hypomania, 57% of whom also experienced mania/hypomania in adolescence. Among those who experienced an episode in adolescence, over 40% also had mania/hypomania during adulthood; the risk did not differ according to child versus adolescent onset. In contrast, 7% with mania/hypomania in childhood, but not adolescence, experienced mania/hypomania in adulthood. Family history (of mania and suicide attempts) predicted mania/hypomania in young adulthood (p-values <0.05); age of onset was not a significant predictor. Among participants with no mania/hypomania during adulthood, 53% (105/198) still experienced subthreshold manic episodes. DISCUSSION: We find substantial continuity across developmental stage indicating that, in this carefully characterized sample, children who experience mania/hypomania-particularly those who also experience mania/hypomania in adolescence-are likely to experience mania/hypomania in young 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207