Phenotypic clustering of bipolar disorder supports stratification by lithium responsiveness over diagnostic subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine whether the clinical profiles of bipolar disorder (BD) patients could be differentiated more clearly using the existing classification by diagnostic subtype or by lithium treatment responsiveness. METHODS: We included adult patients with BD-I or II (N = 477 across four sites) who were treated with lithium as their principal mood stabilizer for at least 1 year. Treatment responsiveness was defined using the dichotomized Alda score. We performed hierarchical clustering on phenotypes defined by 40 features, covering demographics, clinical course, family history, suicide behaviour, and comorbid conditions. We then measured the amount of information that inferred clusters carried about (A) BD subtype and (B) lithium responsiveness using adjusted mutual information (AMI) scores. Detailed phenotypic profiles across clusters were then evaluated with univariate comparisons. RESULTS: Two clusters were identified (n = 56 and n = 421), which captured significantly more information about lithium responsiveness (AMI range: 0.033 to 0.133) than BD subtype (AMI: 0.004 to 0.011). The smaller cluster had disproportionately more lithium responders (n = 47 [83.8%]) when compared to the larger cluster (103 [24.4%]; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Phenotypes derived from detailed clinical data may carry more information about lithium responsiveness than the current classification of diagnostic subtype. These findings support lithium responsiveness as a valid approach to stratification in clinical samples.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".