Predominant Polarity and Polarity Index of Maintenance Treatments for Bipolar Disorder: A Validation Study in a Large Naturalistic Sample in Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Predominant polarity (PP) may be a useful course specifier in at least a significant proportion of patients with Bipolar Disorder (BD), being associated with several clinically relevant correlates. Emerging evidence suggests that the concept of PP might influence the selection of maintenance treatments, based on a drug polarity index (PI) which measures the greater antidepressive vs. antimanic preventive efficacy of mood stabilizers over long-term maintenance treatment. In this study, we aimed to validate the PI in a large sample of Italian BD patients with accurate longitudinal characterization of the clinical course, which ensured a robust definition of the PP. Materials and Methods: Our sample is comprised of 653 patients with BD, divided into groups based on the predominant polarity (manic/hypomanic predominant polarity—MPP, depressive predominant polarity—DPP and no predominant polarity). Subsequently we calculated the mean total polarity index for each group, and we compared the groups. Results: When we examined the mean PI of treatments prescribed to individuals with DPP, MPP and no predominant polarity, calculated using two different methods, we failed to find significant differences, with the exception of the PI calculated with the Popovic method and using the less stringent criterion for predominant polarity (PP50%). Conclusions: Future prospective studies are needed in order to determine whether the predominant polarity is indeed one clinical factor that might guide the clinician in choosing the right mood stabilizer for BD maintenance treatment.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".