Mood regulation in euthymic patients with a history of antidepressant‐induced mania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of antidepressants in bipolar disorder (BD) remains contentious, in part due to the risk of antidepressant-induced mania (AIM). However, there is no information on the architecture of mood regulation in patients who have experienced AIM. We compared the architecture of mood regulation in euthymic patients with and without a history of AIM. METHODS: Eighty-four euthymic participants were included. Participants rated their mood, anxiety and energy levels daily using an electronic (e-) visual analog scale, for a mean (SD) of 280.8(151.4) days. We analyzed their multivariate time series by computing each variable's auto-correlation, inter-variable cross-correlation, and composite multiscale entropy of mood, anxiety, and energy. Then, we compared the data features of participants with a history of AIM and those without AIM, using analysis of covariance, controlling for age, sex, and current treatment. RESULTS: Based on 18,103 daily observations, participants with AIM showed significantly stronger day-to-day auto-correlation and cross-correlation for mood, anxiety, and energy than those without AIM. The highest cross-correlation in participants with AIM was between mood and energy within the same day (median (IQR), 0.58 (0.27)). The strongest negative cross-correlation in participants with AIM was between mood and anxiety series within the same day (median (IQR), -0.52 (0.34)). CONCLUSION: Patients with a history of AIM have a different underlying mood architecture compared to those without AIM. Their mood, anxiety and energy stay the same from day-to-day; and their anxiety is negatively correlated with their mood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".