Prevalence and correlates of childhood‐onset bipolar disorder among adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Early-onset bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with a more severe illness as well as a number of clinical factors among adults. Early-onset can be categorized as childhood- (age < 13) or adolescent- (age ≥ 13) onset, with the two displaying different clinical profiles. We set out to examine differences in clinical, and familial characteristics among adolescents with childhood- versus adolescent-onset BD. METHODS: The study included 195 adolescents with BD, ages 14-18 years. Age of onset was determined retrospectively by self-report. Participants completed the semi-structured K-SADS-PL diagnostic interviews along with self-reported dimensional scales. Analyses examined between-group differences for clinical and familial variables. Variables associated with age of onset at p < 0.1 in univariate analyses were evaluated in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Approximately one-fifth of participants had childhood-onset BD (n = 35; 17.9%). A number of clinical and familial factors were significantly associated with childhood-onset BD. However, there were no significant differences in depressive and manic symptom severity. In multivariate analyses, the variables most strongly associated with childhood-onset were police contact, and family history of suicidal ideation. Smoking and psychiatric hospitalization were associated with adolescent-onset. CONCLUSIONS: In this large clinical sample of adolescents with BD, one-fifth reported childhood-onset BD. Correlates of childhood-onset generally aligned with those observed in the literature. Future research is warranted to better understand the genetic and environmental implications of high familial loading of psychopathology associated with childhood-onset, and to integrate age-related treatment and prevention strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".