Toward exercise as medicine for adolescents with bipolar disorder (TEAM-BD): A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with decreased cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and exercise. Despite the potential benefits for physical and mental health, there is a gap in knowledge regarding treatments targeting improved CRF for BD. This treatment development and feasibility study sought to bridge the knowledge-to-action gap in this area. Twenty youth with BD, 18.0 ± 2.3 years old, enrolled in an exercise behavior change counselling (BCC) intervention targeting improved CRF. The 12-week active intervention included four in-person sessions, augmented by phone/texting sessions on intervening weeks. Optional modules included exercise coaching, family involvement, and peer support. Booster phone/texting sessions occurred at weeks 16 and 20. Participants completed CRF testing at weeks 0, 2, 8, 12, and 24. Seventy percent of participants (14/20) completed all study visits and measures. In the overall enrolled sample, 82% of CRF tests were completed (range 0–5 of 5). There were no significant changes in subjective (via self-report) and objective (via Fitbit) measures of physical activity or in CRF, though CRF testing was consistently associated with acute post-exercise improvement in mood. Most participants reported being very satisfied with the intervention following the 12-week active intervention (13/14) and at week 24 (12/14). Therapist fidelity to the BCC manual was high. Good attendance and study adherence provides preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of a behavioral intervention targeting CRF in youth with BD. Future studies refining the current intervention are warranted toward a goal of demonstrating improved CRF in a randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".