Systematic Review: Mental Health Outcomes in Guillain–Barré Syndrome and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) have mental health sequelae that impact their quality of life. The burden of mental health disorders in these patients is poorly established. AIM: To review the literature on the frequency and risk of mental disorders in GBS and CIDP. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify primary studies that reported mental health outcomes in patients with GBS and CIDP. Screening, full-text review, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a third party. RESULTS: This systematic review included 19 studies. Three studies reported mental health diagnoses using the International Classification of Diseases or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria: up to 82%, 67%, 25% and 22% of patients following GBS were diagnosed with anxiety, depression, brief reactive psychosis and post-traumatic stress disorders, respectively. The risk of anxiety disorders following GBS normalized after 3 months, but the risk of depressive disorders remained elevated for 2 years. Although 30%-50% of patients with CIDP described mental health symptoms, no studies reported mental health diagnoses. Active disease and neuropathic pain were associated with more depressive symptoms in patients with CIDP. CONCLUSION: Many patients following GBS or with active CIDP experience symptoms that may fulfill the criteria for mental health diagnoses, but the paucity of literature suggests that mental health disorders are underdiagnosed and undertreated in this population. These patients are at higher risk of developing mental health disorders, thereby emphasizing the need for timely mental health care and assessment of their disease-specific risk factors.
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 | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".