MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387674971 · doi:10.1176/appi.focus.20230009

The CANMAT and ISBD Guidelines for the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: Summary and a 2023 Update of Evidence

2023· review· en· W4387674971 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kamyar Keramatian, Nellai K. Chithra, Lakshmi N. Yatham

Bibliographic record

VenueFOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderPsychiatryGuidelineBipolar illnessTreatment of bipolar disorderMoodMedicineTolerabilityPopulationMood stabilizerPsychologyManiaInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bipolar disorder is a complex and heterogeneous psychiatric condition that affects more than 2% of the population. The assessment and treatment of bipolar disorder can be a challenge for clinicians, given its clinical complexity and the rapidly changing treatment landscape with the growing range of treatment options that are becoming available for various phases of the illness. To help clinicians navigate the complexity involved in the assessment and management of bipolar disorder, the guidelines of the 2018 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) synthesized the evidence on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of treatments for bipolar disorder and translated it into first-, second-, and third-line treatment recommendations. The main objective of this contribution is to provide clinicians with a summary of the 2018 CANMAT/ISBD guideline recommendations with the addition of any new evidence for the treatment of bipolar disorder across the lifespan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207