MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394576695 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2024.27

Global perspectives on bipolar disorder treatment: in-depth comparative analysis of international guidelines for medication selection

2024· article· en· W4394576695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ji Hyun Park, Kaveesha Fernando, Youngja H. Park, Esther O. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsBipolar disorderMoodNeuropsychopharmacologyGuidelineMental healthMedicineScale (ratio)PsychiatryPsychologyClinical psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder, a chronic mental health condition characterised by fluctuations in mood, energy and functionality, affects millions of individuals worldwide. Its management requires a comprehensive approach, and, as such, treatment guidelines have a pivotal role in guiding clinicians to alleviate symptoms, prevent relapse and enhance overall patient well-being. However, the treatment landscape is far from homogenous, with significant variations existing across different countries. AIMS: This study aimed to explore and compare treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in various regions, shedding light on the factors that influence therapeutic approaches and thus offering insights that could contribute to the ongoing refinement of evidence-based practices in management. METHOD: The study explores various international treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder that have been updated after 2014. Guidelines from the UK, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, South Korea and the International College of Neuropsychopharmacology are scrutinised to identify factors contributing to the observed differences among them. RESULTS: The variations in recommended drugs across guidelines arise from the approaches employed in guideline development - whether relying on expert consensus or meta-analysis results. Timing disparities in conducting these analyses and the selection of studies also exert influence. Moreover, differences in metabolic enzymes among diverse races and the health policies implemented by individual nations play a significant part in shaping these differences. CONCLUSION: The primary hindrance to consistent treatment conclusions lies in the scarcity of high-quality research results, leading to variations in guidelines. Enhancing evidence-based recommendations necessitates the undertaking of large-scale studies dedicated to assessing treatments for bipolar disorder.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.372 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207