Demographic and clinical characteristics of lithium‐treated older adults with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is limited information on the characteristics of older adults with bipolar disorder (OABD) treated with lithium, along with safety concerns about its use by older adults. The aim of the present study is to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of OABD receiving lithium therapy, using data from the Global Ageing & Geriatric Experiments in Bipolar Disorder (GAGE-BD). EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES: Cross-sectional analysis of the GAGE-BD dataset to determine differences and similarities between lithium users and non-users. We analysed data from 986 participants aged 50 years or older (mean age 63.5 years; 57.5% females) from 12 study sites. Two subgroups ('Lithium'; 'Non-lithium') were defined according to the current prescription of lithium. We compared several outcomes between these groups, controlling for age, gender, and study site. RESULTS: OABD treated with lithium had lower scores on depression rating scales and were less likely to be categorised as with moderate or severe depression. There was a lower proportion of lithium users than non-users among those with evidence of rapid cycling and non-bipolar psychiatric diagnoses. Assessment of global cognitive state and functionality indicated better performance among lithium users. The current use of antipsychotics was less frequent among lithium users, who also reported fewer cardiovascular comorbidities than non-users. CONCLUSION: We found several potentially relevant differences in the clinical profile of OABD treated with lithium compared with those treated with other mood stabilisers. However, the interpretation of the present results must take into account the methodological limitations inherent to the cross-sectional approach and data harmonisation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".