The impact of body mass index on the clinical features of bipolar disorder: A <scp>STEP‐BD</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effects of body mass index (BMI) on the core symptoms of bipolar disorder (BD) and its implications for disease trajectory are largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether BMI impacted hospitalization rate, medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and core symptom domains such as depression and suicidality in BD. METHODS: Participants (15 years and older) were 2790 BD outpatients enrolled in the longitudinal STEP-BD study; all met DSM-IV criteria for BD-I, BD-II, cyclothymia, BD NOS, or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar subtype. BMI, demographic information, psychiatric and medical comorbidities, and other clinical variables such as bipolarity index, history of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and history of suicide attempts were collected at baseline. Longitudinal changes in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score, and hospitalizations during the study were also assessed. Depending on the variable of interest, odds-ratios, regression analyses, factor analyses, and graph analyses were applied. RESULTS: A robust increase in psychiatric and medical comorbidities was observed, particularly for baseline BMIs >35. A significant relationship was noted between higher BMI and history of suicide attempts, and individuals with BMIs >40 had the highest prevalence of suicide attempts. Obese and overweight individuals had a higher bipolarity index (a questionnaire measuring disease severity) and were more likely to have received ECT. Higher BMIs correlated with worsening trajectory of core depression symptoms and with worsening lassitude and inability to feel. CONCLUSIONS: In BD participants, elevated BMI was associated with worsening clinical features, including higher rates of suicidality, comorbidities, and core depression symptoms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".