Predicting bipolar disorder I/II in individuals at clinical high-risk: Results from a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: No systematic review has estimated the consistency and the magnitude of the risk of developing bipolar disorder I-II (BD-I/II) in individuals at clinical high risk for bipolar disorder (CHR-BD). METHODS: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched until April 2022 in this pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42022346515) PRISMA-compliant systematic review to identify longitudinal studies in individuals meeting pre-defined CHR-BD criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and results were systematically synthesized around CHR-BD criteria across follow-up periods and different subgroups. RESULTS: Altogether, 13 studies were included reporting on nine prospective independent cohorts (n = 678 individuals at CHR-BD). The mean age of participants was 15.7 years (range 10.1-22.6 years), and 54.2 % were females. The most common CHR-BD subgroup was subthreshold mania (55.5 %), followed by BD-Not Otherwise Specified (BD-NOS: 33.3 %). Development of BD I/II ranged from 7.1 % to 23.4 % after 2 years. Development of BD-I ranged from 3.4 % at 4 years to 23 % at 8 years. Development of BD-II ranged from 10 % at 2 years to 63.8 % at 4 years. The risk of developing BD-I appeared highest in those meeting BD-NOS criteria (23 % at eight years). Predictors of development of BD were identified but remained mostly unreplicated. The quality of the included studies was moderate (NOS = 5.2 ± 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Emerging data from research studies point towards the promising utility of CHR-BD criteria. These studies may pave the way to the next generation of research, implementing detection, prognostication, and preventive interventions in individuals at CHR-BD identified and followed in clinical practice.
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 | 0.018 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".