MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W332542082 · doi:10.1177/070674370404901201

Highlighting Bipolar II Disorder

2004· editorial· en· W332542082 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gordon Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2004
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderBipolar II disorderManiaHypomaniaPsychiatryComorbidityGeneralizability theoryPsychologyEpidemiologyMedicineCognitionDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently, epidemiologic studies put the lifetime risk of manic-depressive illness, or bipolar disorder (BD), at 1 % to 2%. Now many clinicians are observing a considerable increase in bipolar II disorder (BD II), though in the absence of any concomitant increase in bipolar I disorder (BD I) referrals. If such observations are valid, how can they be explained? In this section several key issues are pursued (1,2). First, has there been a true increase in BD II, or has detection merely improved? second, considering the lengthy delays between onset and diagnosis of BD II, what strategies might further improve detection? Third, how should BDI and BDII be best modelled and distinguished-along a continuum or as distinct entities? Fourth, what neurobiological processes underpin BDII, and do they differ from those underpinning BD I? Fifth, might the management of BD II require different strategies than the current armamentarium used for managing BD I, whether these disorders differ dimensionally or categorically? As clinical observation is clearly open to numerous biases, is there more formalized evidence indicating that BD may be increasing? If this is a true phenomenon, an increased incidence in community studies would be anticipated over time; There is evidence for such an increase, at least in the overall bipolar class. When we compare the lifetime rate of mania in the 1984 Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) Community Study (3) and in the 1994 National Comorbidity Survey (4), respective rates (that is, 0.9% and 1.6%) suggest a doubling over the decade. Additionally, if BD is increasing, we would expect a cohort effect (for example, higher rates in younger people). Turning again to ECA data, we find that the rates for those aged 18 to 24 years were 1.3%, compared with 1.6% for those aged 25 to 44 years, 0.4% for those aged 45 to 64 years, and 0.1% for those aged 65 years or over. Such data support but do not prove a change in prevalence. Alternatively, changed rates might simply reflect changes in diagnostic approaches. As detailed by Hadjipavlou and colleagues (2), the application of and diagnostic criteria in a Zurich study is illuminating (5). In that cohort, the rates for BDI were 0.5% and 0.5% for hard and soft diagnostic assignment, respectively, and were identical to the DSM-IV decision rule-assigned rate. For BDII, the prevalence rate was 5.3% for diagnostic assessment and 11.9% for diagnostic assignment, with both well exceeding the DSM-IV rate of 1.6%. Study results indicate that the impact of differing assessment methods is more likely to apply to BD II than to BD I and that DSM-IV rates tend to be lower than cliniciandriven rates. Such differences are likely to be distinctly influenced by the DSM-IV requirement that a hypomanic state last at least 4 days. Other artefactual determinants of higher prevalence estimates include a widening of the definition of BD. The old diagnostic label of manic-depressive psychosis was rarely applied and is logically inappropriate in instances of milder bipolar states. As we are now seeing a broader subsection of the population, the rates of those with BD II may not necessarily correspond with those coming to clinical attention before and after mood disorder destigmatization. Again, redefinition or reconceptualization of certain diagnostic categories (for example, cyclothymia) has effectively broadened the spectrum of BDs. If there has been a real increase in BD II, a wide set of possible determinants invite speculation. Genetic changes would need to be considered. Environmental influences include increased use of illicit stimulant drugs and even increased use of prescribed antidepressants, because of their suggested capacity to cause switching. Another environmental candidate intriguing our research team is an omega-3 fatty acid (O3FA) contribution with several indirect lines of evidence. Several studies have shown striking associations (with correlations exceeding 0. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.007

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicBipolar Disorder and Treatment→French-language works237,207→