Patterns of pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder: A <scp>GBC</scp> survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand treatment practices for bipolar disorders (BD), this study leveraged the Global Bipolar Cohort collaborative network to investigate pharmacotherapeutic treatment patterns in multiple cohorts of well-characterized individuals with BD in North America, Europe, and Australia. METHODS: Data on pharmacotherapy, demographics, diagnostic subtypes, and comorbidities were provided from each participating cohort. Individual site and regional pooled proportional meta-analyses with generalized linear mixed methods were conducted to identify prescription patterns. RESULTS: This study included 10,351 individuals from North America (n = 3985), Europe (n = 3822), and Australia (n = 2544). Overall, participants were predominantly female (60%) with BD-I (60%; vs. BD-II = 33%). Cross-sectionally, mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants (44%), second-generation antipsychotics (42%), and antidepressants (38%) were the most prescribed medications. Lithium was prescribed in 29% of patients, primarily in the Australian (31%) and European (36%) cohorts. First-generation antipsychotics were prescribed in 24% of the European versus 1% in the North American cohort. Antidepressant prescription rates were higher in BD-II (47%) compared to BD-I (35%). Major limitations were significant differences among cohorts based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, data source, and time/year of enrollment into cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants, second-generation antipsychotics, and antidepressants were the most prescribed medications suggesting prescription patterns that are not necessarily guideline concordant. Significant differences exist in the prescription practices across different geographic regions, especially the underutilization of lithium in the North American cohorts and the higher utilization of first-generation antipsychotics in the European cohorts. There is a need to conduct future longitudinal studies to further explore these differences and their impact on outcomes, and to inform and implement evidence-based guidelines to help improve treatment practices in BD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".