Consensus on nomenclature for clinical staging models in bipolar disorder: A narrative review from the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Staging Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical staging is widely used in medicine to map disease progression, inform prognosis, and guide treatment decisions; in psychiatry, however, staging remains a hypothetical construct. To facilitate future research in bipolar disorders (BD), a well-defined nomenclature is needed, especially since diagnosis is often imprecise with blurred boundaries, and a full understanding of pathophysiology is lacking. METHODS: Under the auspices of the International Society of Bipolar Disorders, a Task Force of international experts was convened to review, discuss, and integrate findings from the scientific literature relevant to the development of a consensus staging model and standardize a terminology that could be used to advance future research including staging of BD and related disorders. RESULTS: Consensus opinion and areas of uncertainty or difference were identified in regard to terms referring to staging as it may apply to BD, to at-risk status and subthreshold stages, and to various clinical stages of BD as it is currently diagnosed. CONCLUSION: The use of a standardized nomenclature about the clinical stages of BD will facilitate communication about research on clinical and pathological components of this heterogeneous group of disorders. The concepts presented are based on current evidence, but the template provided allows for further refinements as etiological advances come to light.
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 | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".