MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399940235 · doi:10.1186/s40345-024-00345-8

Lithium and its effects: does dose matter?

2024· article· en· W4399940235 on OpenAlexaff
Mirko Manchia, Pasquale Paribello, Martina Pinna, Luca Steardo, Bernardo Carpiniello, Federica Pinna, Claudia Pisanu, Alessio Squassina, Tomáš Hájek

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bipolar Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityLithium (medication)MoodMood stabilizerBipolar disorderPsychologyNeurologyMedicineTreatment of bipolar disorderClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineManiaAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Decades of clinical research have demonstrated the efficacy of lithium in treating acute episodes (both manic and depressive), as well as in preventing recurrences of bipolar disorder (BD). Specific to lithium is its antisuicidal effect, which appears to extend beyond its mood-stabilizing properties. Lithium's clinical effectiveness is, to some extent, counterbalanced by its safety and tolerability profile. Indeed, monitoring of lithium levels is required by its narrow therapeutic index. There is consensus that adequate serum levels should be above 0.6 mEq/L to achieve clinical effectiveness. However, few data support the choice of this threshold, and increasing evidence suggests that lithium might have clinical and molecular effects at much lower concentrations. CONTENT: This narrative review is aimed at: (1) reviewing and critically interpreting the clinical evidence supporting the use of the 0.6 mEq/L threshold, (2) reporting a narrative synthesis of the evidence supporting the notion that lithium might be effective in much lower doses. Among these are epidemiological studies of lithium in water, evidence on the antisuicidal, anti-aggressive, and neuroprotective effects, including efficacy in preventing cognitive impairment progression, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), of lithium; and (3) revieweing biological data supporting clinically viable uses of lithium at low levels with the delineation of a mechanistic hypothesis surrounding its purported mechanism of action. The study selection was based on the authors' preference, reflecting the varied and extensive expertise on the review subject, further enriched with an extensive pearl-growing strategy for relevant reviews and book sections. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and molecular effects of lithium are numerous, and its effects also appear to have a certain degree of specificity related to the dose administered. In sum, the clinical effects of lithium are maximal for mood stabilisation at concentrations higher than 0.6 mEq/l. However, lower levels may be sufficient for preventing depressive recurrences in older populations of patients, and microdoses could be effective in decreasing suicide risk, especially in patients with BD. Conversely, lithium's ability to counteract cognitive decline appears to be exerted at subtherapeutic doses, possibly corresponding to its molecular neuroprotective effects. Indeed, lithium may reduce inflammation and induce neuroprotection even at doses several folds lower than those commonly used in clinical settings. Nevertheless, findings surrounding its purported mechanism of action are missing, and more research is needed to investigate the molecular targets of low-dose lithium adequately.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207