Barriers to timely identification of bipolar disorder in youth: a multidimensional perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bipolar disorder (BD) in youth often goes unrecognized and therefore untreated. However, little is known about pathways to treatment of youth with BD and factors that influence the time taken for each stage of these pathways. In this article, we use the conceptual framework by Scott and colleagues called the Model of Pathways to Treatment as a foundation to explore the components of delay in the diagnosis and treatment of youth with BD. The total time from the onset of symptoms until treatment initiation was divided into four sequential intervals; i.e., the Appraisal, the Help-seeking, the Diagnostic and the Pre-treatment intervals and potential disease, patient, and healthcare system/provider factors that influence each interval were identified. This multidimensional conceptual framework can offer a systematic approach to understanding and exploring barriers to early identification and interventions in BD, which is a crucial step in the development of strategies to facilitate prompt diagnosis and treatment. We hope this work contributes to the discussion on delayed diagnosis and treatment of youth with BD and provides a roadmap to inform future research studies and policy decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".