The nosological status of unipolar mania and hypomania within <scp>UK</scp> Biobank according to objective and subjective measures of diurnal rest and activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty whether unipolar mania is a discrete sub-type of bipolar disorder. Disrupted rest/activity rhythms are a key feature of bipolar disorder (BD) but have not been well characterised in unipolar mania/hypomania (UM). We compared subjective and objective rest/activity patterns, demographic and mental health outcomes across BD, UM and control groups. METHODS: UK residents aged 37-73 years were recruited into UK Biobank from 2006 to 2010. BD, UM and control groups were identified via a mental health questionnaire. Demographic, mental health and subjective sleep outcomes were self-reported. Accelerometery data were available for a subset of participants, and objective measures of sleep and activity were derived. RESULTS: A greater proportion of males met UM criteria, and more females were in the BD group. Both BD and UM groups had poor mental health outcomes vs. controls. Objectively measured activity differed between all three groups: UM had highest levels of activity and BD lowest. The UM group had shorter sleep duration compared to controls. Subjective rest/activity measures showed that both mood disorder groups (compared to controls) had later chronotype preference, more disturbed sleep and increased difficulty getting up in the morning. However, the UM group were more likely to report an early chronotype compared to BD and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: BD and UM share features in common, but key differences support the proposition that UM may be a distinct and more clinically homogenous disorder. UM was characterised by a higher proportion of males, early chronotype, increased activity and shorter sleep duration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".