MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321498425 · doi:10.1177/07067437231156235

Does the Ranking Matter? A Retrospective Cohort Study Investigating the Impact of the <i>2018 CANMAT and ISBD Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Bipolar Disorder</i> Treatment Recommendations for Acute Mania on Rehospitalization Rates

2023· article· en· W4321498425 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Fabiano A. Gomes, Henrique Oliveira Dumay, Julia Fagen, Natalie Palma, Roumen Milev, Elisa Brietzke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health CareMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
FundersSunovionCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchH. Lundbeck A/SEisaiNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionSoutheastern Ontario Academic Medical OrganizationAllerganQueen's UniversityDaiichi-SankyoPfizerPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyMoodInternal medicineManiaBipolar disorderOdds ratioMood disordersCohortAnxietyPsychiatryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective There is limited data about the impact of mood disorders treatment guidelines on clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of prescribers’ adherence to the 2018 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) treatment guidelines recommendations on the readmission rates of patients hospitalized for mania. Method A retrospective cohort of all individuals admitted due to acute mania to Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, from January 2018 to July 2021 was included in this study. Patient variables and data regarding index admission and subsequent hospitalizations were extracted from medical records up to December 31, 2021. Treatment regimens were classified as first-line, second-line, noncompliant, or no treatment. We explored the associations between treatment regimens and the risk of readmissions using univariate, multivariate, and survival analysis. Results We identified 211 hospitalizations related to 165 patients. The mean time-to-readmission was 211.8 days (standard deviation [SD] = 247.1); the 30-day rehospitalization rate was 13.7%, and any rehospitalization rate was 40.3%. Compared to no treatment, only first-line treatments were associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of 30-day readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.209; 95% CI, 0.058 to 0.670). The risk of any readmission was reduced by first-line (OR = 0.387; 95% CI, 0.173 to 0.848) and noncompliant regimens (OR = 0.414; 95% CI, 0.174 to 0.982) compared to no treatment. On survival analysis, no treatment group was associated with shorter time-to-readmission (log-rank test, p = 0.014) and increased risk of readmission (hazard ratio = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.96) when compared to first-line medications. Conclusions Treatment with first-line medications was associated with lower 30-day rehospitalization rates and longer time-to-readmission. Physicians’ adherence to treatments with higher-ranked evidence for efficacy, safety, and tolerability may improve bipolar disorder outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicBipolar Disorder and Treatment→French-language works237,207→