Functioning in older adults with bipolar disorder: A report on recommendations by the International Society of bipolar disorder (<scp>ISBD</scp>) older adults with bipolar disorder (<scp>OABD</scp>) task force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the importance of psychosocial functioning impairment in Bipolar Disorder (BD), its role among Older Adults with BD (OABD) is not well known. The development of guidelines for the assessment of psychosocial functioning helps to facilitate a better understanding of OABD and can lead to better tailored interventions to improve the clinical outcomes of this population. METHODS: Through a series of virtual meetings, experts from eight countries in the International Society of Bipolar Disorder (ISBD) on OABD task force developed recommendations for the assessment of psychosocial functioning. RESULTS: We present (1) a conceptualization of functioning in OABD and differences compared with younger patients; (2) factors related to functioning in OABD; (3) current measures of functioning in OABD and their strengths and limitations; and, (4) other potential sources of information to assess functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The task force created recommendations for assessing functioning in OABD. Current instruments are limited, so measures specifically designed for OABD, such as the validated FAST-O scale, should be more widely adopted. Following the proposed recommendations for assessment can improve research and clinical care in OABD and potentially lead to better treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".