Screening for Bipolar I Disorder and the Rapid Mood Screener
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective screening for bipolar I disorder can lead to enhanced assessment, improved diagnosis, and better patient outcomes. The Rapid Mood Screener (RMS), a new bipolar I disorder screening tool, was evaluated in a nationwide survey of health care providers (HCPs). Eligible HCPs were asked to describe their opinions/current use of screening tools, assess the RMS, and evaluate the RMS versus the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). Results were stratified by primary care and psychiatric specialty. Findings were reported using descriptive statistics; statistical significance was reported at the 95% confidence level. < .05); 76% reported that they would screen new patients with depressive symptoms, and 68% indicated they would rescreen patients with a depression diagnosis. Most HCPs (84%) said the RMS would have a positive impact on their practice, with 46% saying they would screen more patients for bipolar disorder. In our survey, the RMS was favorably evaluated by HCPs. A large percentage of respondents preferred the RMS over the MDQ and indicated that it would likely have a positive impact on clinicians' screening behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".