Neurobiological and behavioral mechanisms of circadian rhythm disruption in bipolar disorder: A critical multi‐disciplinary literature review and agenda for future research from the ISBD task force on chronobiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Symptoms of bipolar disorder (BD) include changes in mood, activity, energy, sleep, and appetite. Since many of these processes are regulated by circadian function, circadian rhythm disturbance has been examined as a biological feature underlying BD. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders Chronobiology Task Force (CTF) was commissioned to review evidence for neurobiological and behavioral mechanisms pertinent to BD. METHOD: Drawing upon expertise in animal models, biomarkers, physiology, and behavior, CTF analyzed the relevant cross-disciplinary literature to precisely frame the discussion around circadian rhythm disruption in BD, highlight key findings, and for the first time integrate findings across levels of analysis to develop an internally consistent, coherent theoretical framework. RESULTS: Evidence from multiple sources implicates the circadian system in mood regulation, with corresponding associations with BD diagnoses and mood-related traits reported across genetic, cellular, physiological, and behavioral domains. However, circadian disruption does not appear to be specific to BD and is present across a variety of high-risk, prodromal, and syndromic psychiatric disorders. Substantial variability and ambiguity among the definitions, concepts and assumptions underlying the research have limited replication and the emergence of consensus findings. CONCLUSIONS: Future research in circadian rhythms and its role in BD is warranted. Well-powered studies that carefully define associations between BD-related and chronobiologically-related constructs, and integrate across levels of analysis will be most illuminating.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".