Familial traits of bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic studies of bipolar disorder (BD) have shown varied results, which is in part because of the heterogeneity of the disorder. Identifying clinical phenotypes of BD could reduce variability and benefit research. Since BD has a robust genetic component, studies can investigate clinical traits that cluster in families to identify phenotypes with a probable genetic basis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the current literature on familial clinical traits of BD. Text screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, and random effects meta-analysis was used. RESULTS: Of 1117 unique records, 16 studies met inclusion criteria. These studies indicated 14 potentially familial traits of BD: age of onset (OR: 4.50; 95% CI: [3.25, 6.22]), bipolar type (OR: 2.05 [1.50, 2.79]), lithium response (OR: 3.71 [1.28, 10.82]), polarity at onset (OR: 1.17 [1.03, 1.34]), psychotic features (OR: 2.20 [1.51, 3.20]), mood-incongruent psychosis (OR: 2.52 [1.66, 3.83]), puerperal psychosis (OR: 6.54 [2.55, 16.77]), rapid cycling (OR: 4.95 [0.96, 25.40]), suicide attempt (OR: 1.04 [0.65, 1.67]), alcoholism (OR: 1.53 [1.09, 2.16]), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OR: 3.10 [1.31; 7.09]), panic disorder (OR: 2.69 [1.12; 6.48]), social anxiety disorder (OR: 1.00 [0.39, 2.55]), and specific phobia (OR: 1.94 [0.95; 3.96]). For most traits, tests of heterogeneity were significant and publication bias was likely. CONCLUSION: The results of our review and meta-analysis highlight the lack of studies investigating familial clinical traits of BD, despite the need to address heterogeneity. The large degree of variability between studies must be reduced for future research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".