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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".