MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220738674 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000200186

Prevalence of Bipolar Symptoms or Disorder in Epilepsy

2022· article· en· W4220738674 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyCertaintyMEDLINENeurological disorderBipolar disorderEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42021249336) was performed to estimate the pooled lifetime prevalence of bipolar symptoms (BS) and bipolar disorder (BD) in people with epilepsy (PWE). METHODS: A search was performed on June 5, 2021, in 4 databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science) for original research reporting on BS/BD in PWE, with no restriction on language or time of publication. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) original research, (2) cross-sectional study design component, (3) reported lifetime prevalence of BS/BD or enough information to calculate an estimate, and (4) reported the method by which participants were deemed bipolar. Studies based on an exclusively pediatric population were excluded. To calculate pooled lifetime prevalence of BS/BD, 2 meta-analytic random-effects models were fitted, one for BS and the other for BD. Risk of bias was assessed using a standardized appraisal tool for studies reporting prevalence. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: A total of 750 records were screened and 17 studies were included for analysis: 7 provided prevalence estimates for only BS, 8 for only BD, and 2 for both BS and BD. After outlier exclusion and subgroup analysis using screening method as a moderator, the pooled prevalence of BS in PWE was 12.3% (95% CI 10.6%-14.1%) (7,506 PWE). The pooled prevalence of BD in PWE was 4.5% (95% CI 2.2%-7.4%) (48,334 PWE). Considerable heterogeneity was present, more so for BD than for BS, and could be explained through differences in population demographics and study methodology. DISCUSSION: This study's main limitation was regarding the certainty of evidence. However, our estimates of prevalence should prompt further research on BS/BD in PWE. Given the significant morbidity associated with BD, clinicians should carefully screen PWE for BS.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.025
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207