Evaluación de la funcionalidad y el bienestar subjetivo de pacientes bipolares con el Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) y el World Health Organisation - Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bipolar Disorders (BD) are a mood disorders group charactered by recurrent manic or hypomanic episodes, alternating with depressive episodes. Its prevalence is 4%, and several studies have shown that they generate disability. There are effective therapeutic options for acute episodes. However, the ultimate goal is to achieve functional recovery and adequate well-being. MATERIAL AND METHODS: There was done in Buenos Aires, Argentina a cross-sectional study comparing psychosocial functioning, with the Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) and subjective well-being with the Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5), among a sample of stabilized BD patients undergoing treatment at the Center of Medical Education and Clinical Research (Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas) and the Bipolar Foundation (Fundación Bipolares de Argentina), with a control group. RESULTS: A total of 102 BD patients and 52 controls where included. The FAST mean for patients and controls was 20.71 and 9.73 respectively (P=0.0000). The WHO-5 mean for patients was 59.11 and 69.76 for controls (P=0.0011). More than 70% of the patients presented functional alteration (FAST ≥12), and almost 35% presented inadequate subjective well-being (WHO-5 ≤52). Depressive symptoms conditioned worse scores on both scales. FAST scores were better among those who participated in mutual aid groups (P=0.026). While patients who underwent psychoeducation and those who received anticonvulsant drugs, presented better WHO-5 scores (P = 0.028 and P=0.048 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BD showed poor Functionality and poor Well-being despite being stabilized. There is direct relationship between both conditions. Depressive symptoms generated worst scores on the scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".