A Critical Evaluation of Dynamical Systems Models of Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bipolar disorder (BD) is a mood disorder involving recurring (hypo)manic and depressive episodes. The inherently temporal nature of BD has inspired its conceptualization using dynamical systems theory, which is a mathematical framework for understanding systems that evolve over time. In this paper we provide a critical review of dynamical systems models of BD. Owing to heterogeneity of methodologies and experimental designs in computational modeling, we designed a structured approach to guide our review in a fashion that parallels the appraisal of animal models by their Face, Predictive, and Construct Validity. This tool, the Validity Appraisal Guide for Computational Models (VAG-CM) is not an absolute estimate of validity, but rather a guide for more objective appraisal of models in this review. We identified 26 studies published before November 18, 2021 that proposed generative dynamical systems models of time-varying signals in BD. Two raters independently applied the VAG-CM to included studies, obtaining a mean Cohen's kappa of 0.55 (95% CI [0.45, 0.64]) prior to establishing consensus ratings. Consensus VAG-CM ratings revealed three model/study clusters: data-driven models with face validity, theory-driven models with predictive validity, and theory-driven models lacking all forms of validity. We conclude that future models should be developed using a hybrid approach that first operationalizes BD features of interest using empirical data (a data-driven approach), followed by explanations of those features using generative models with components that are homologous to physiological or psychological systems involved in BD (a theory-driven approach).
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 | 0.102 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".