Developing a profile of activities of daily living for bipolar disorder: a systematic review protocol and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a severe mental health disorder that affects 2% of the adult population. Individuals with this disorder are at a higher risk for morbidity and functional difficulties. They may also experience significant challenges in their activities of daily living (ADLs). This systematic review will identify all available studies that examine subsets of ADLs that impact individuals with BD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and APA PsycINFO will be searched to identify observational studies that examined functioning, independence or performance across a variety of ADLs. Title and abstract, full-text screening and a risk of bias assessment will be conducted in duplicate. An overarching table that summarises the level of functioning across different ADLs or an 'ADL profile' will be developed, and if there are sufficient data, these will be separated based on the phases of BD, such as manic/hypomanic, depressed and euthymic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this systematic review uses information from previous literature, this review does not require ethics approval. This review will help identify the trends in daily activities that individuals struggle with and can help healthcare practitioners identify specific areas of need for support. We plan to disseminate the results in a peer-reviewed journal and conferences targeting occupational therapists and mental health clinicians. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021255089.
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 | 0.059 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.003 |
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".