Duration of untreated or undiagnosed bipolar disorder and clinical characteristics and outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The duration of undiagnosed or untreated bipolar disorder (DUBD) has become a focus of research interest. However, its relationship with clinical characteristics and outcomes remains poorly understood. AIMS: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine DUBD and explore its relationships with clinical characteristics and outcomes in bipolar disorder. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify studies reporting on DUBD and its relationships with clinical characteristics and outcomes including frequency of relapse into mood episodes, severity and persistence of mood symptoms, functional and cognitive measures, suicidality, hospital admission rate, and comorbidities such as substance use disorders. RESULTS: Thirty articles met inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and 23 studies were included in the three different sets of meta-analyses. The pooled mean DUBD across all studies was 9.10 years. Early onset, depression as the polarity of the first mood episode, lifetime suicide attempts, comorbid anxiety and alcohol use disorders, and family history of bipolar disorder were associated with significantly longer DUBD, whereas diagnosis of bipolar I disorder and lifetime psychotic symptoms were associated with shorter DUBD. Studies that investigated outcomes subsequent to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder yielded conflicting results. CONCLUSION: DUBD may be associated with certain adverse outcomes. This association indicates the importance of adopting a more comprehensive approach to assessing mood disorders, with an emphasis on prioritising early screening for bipolar disorder. The significant heterogeneity among included studies suggests a need for improved methodological rigour in future research.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".