Clinical correlates of late‐onset versus early‐onset bipolar disorder in a global sample of older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Late-onset bipolar disorder (LOBD) represents a significant subgroup of bipolar disorder (BD). However, knowledge for this group is mostly extrapolated from small studies in subjects with early/mixed age of illness onset. In this global sample of older adults with BD (OABD: ≥50 years old) we aim to characterize the sociodemographic and clinical presentation of LOBD (≥40 years at BD onset) compared to early-onset BD (EOBD: <40 years at BD onset). METHODS: The Global Aging and Geriatric Experiments in Bipolar Disorder consortium provided international data on 437 older age bipolar disorder participants. We compared LOBD versus EOBD on depression, mania, functionality, and physical comorbidities. Exploratory analyses were performed on participants with BD onset ≥50 years old. RESULTS: LOBD (n = 105) did not differ from EOBD (n = 332) on depression, mania, global functioning, nor employment status (p > 0.05). Late-onset bipolar disorder was associated with higher endocrine comorbidities (odds ratio = 1.48, [95%CI = 1.0,12.1], p = 0.03). This difference did not remain significant when subjects with BD onset ≥50 years old were analyzed. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the retrospective nature of the variable age of onset and the differences in evaluation methods across studies (partially overcame by harmonization processes). CONCLUSION: The present analysis is in favor of the hypothesis that LOBD might represent a similar clinical phenotype as classic EOBD with respect to core BD symptomatology, functionality, and comorbid physical conditions. Large-scale global collaboration to improve our understanding of BD across the lifespan is needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".