Longitudinal Digital Mood Charting in Bipolar Disorder: Experiences with ChronoRecord Over 20 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Longitudinal study is an essential methodology for understanding disease trajectories, treatment effects, symptom changes, and long-term outcomes of affective disorders. Daily self-charting of mood and other illness-related variables is a commonly recommended intervention. With the widespread acceptance of home computers in the early 2000s, automated tools were developed for patient mood charting, such as ChronoRecord, a software validated by patients with bipolar disorder. The purpose of this study was to summarize the daily mood, sleep, and medication data collected with ChronoRecord, and highlight some of the key research findings. Lessons learned from implementing a computerized tool for patient self-reporting are also discussed. METHODS: After a brief training session, ChronoRecord software for daily mood charting was installed on a home computer and used by 609 patients with affective disorders. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 40.3±11.8 years, a mean age of onset was 22±11.2 years, and 71.4% were female. Patients were euthymic for 70.8% of days, 15.1% had mild depression, 6.6% had severe depression, 6.6% had hypomania, and 0.8% had mania. Among all mood groups, 22.4% took 1-2 medications, 37.2% took 3-4 medications, 25.7 took 5-6 medications, 11.6% took 7-8 medications, and 3.1% took >8 medications. CONCLUSION: The daily mood charting tool is a useful tool for increasing patient involvement in their care, providing detailed patient data to the physician, and increasing understanding of the course of illness. Longitudinal data from patient mood charting was helpful in both clinical and research settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".