The prevalence, clinical impact, and therapeutic considerations of trauma in adults with bipolar disorder: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exposure to severe stressful life events (e.g., physical, sexual, emotional abuse and/or physical or emotional neglect) is common among adults with bipolar disorder (BD) and is associated with poor prognosis and clinical outcomes. This systematic review aims to evaluate the prevalence, clinical impact, and therapeutic considerations of trauma in adults with BD. METHODS: A systematic review of primary research was conducted using Embase, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases from inception to January 2025, following PRISMA criteria. Sixteen human studies evaluating the prevalence, clinical impact, and therapeutic considerations of trauma in adults with BD were included. RESULTS: Prevalence rates of trauma in adults with BD have been variably estimated at approximately 40-60%. Childhood physical maltreatment is highly associated with comorbidities (e.g., metabolic disorders) and symptom severity in adults with BD. Childhood emotional maltreatment is associated with an earlier age of onset, greater illness severity, comorbidity and suicidality in BD. The moderating effects of trauma on treatment response across disparate modalities of treatment are not adequately characterized in persons with BD. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma, especially childhood trauma, is prevalent and has a severe negative clinical impact on the presentation, progression, treatment, and outcomes of adults with BD. The research strategic priority is to characterize the biosignature of trauma in BD, the impact of trauma on treatment outcomes, and to empirically evaluate integrated models of care in persons with BD with a history of trauma.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".