Essential data dimensions for prospective international data collection in older age bipolar disorder (<scp>OABD</scp>): Recommendations from the <scp>GAGE‐BD</scp> group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: By 2030, over 50% of individuals living with bipolar disorder (BD) are expected to be aged ≥50 years. However, older age bipolar disorder (OABD) remains understudied. There are limited large-scale prospectively collected data organized in key dimensions capable of addressing several fundamental questions about BD affecting this subgroup of patients. METHODS: We developed initial recommendations for the essential dimensions for OABD data collection, based on (1) a systematic review of measures used in OABD studies, (2) a Delphi consensus of international OABD experts, (3) experience with harmonizing OABD data in the Global Aging & Geriatric Experiments in Bipolar Disorder Database (GAGE-BD, n ≥ 4500 participants), and (4) critical feedback from 34 global experts in geriatric mental health. RESULTS: We identified 15 key dimensions and variables within each that are relevant for the investigation of OABD: (1) demographics, (2) core symptoms of depression and (3) mania, (4) cognition screening and subjective cognitive function, (5) elements for BD diagnosis, (6) descriptors of course of illness, (7) treatment, (8) suicidality, (9) current medication, (10) psychiatric comorbidity, (11) psychotic symptoms, (12) general medical comorbidities, (13) functioning, (14) family history, and (15) other. We also recommend particular instruments for capturing some of the dimensions and variables. CONCLUSION: The essential data dimensions we present should be of use to guide future international data collection in OABD and clinical practice. In the longer term, we aim to establish a prospective consortium using this core set of dimensions and associated variables to answer research questions relevant to OABD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".