Essential information about chronobiology and chronotherapy for the optimal care of people with bipolar disorders: an international expert consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Circadian dysfunction is involved in the pathophysiology of bipolar disorders (BD), and circadian-based interventions are gaining recognition in their management. Moreover, basic and epidemiologic research has generated findings inspiring circadian-informed self- and clinician-management strategies. Despite these gains, many Clinical Practice Guidelines and clinical training programs have not incorporated this evidence in their recommendations and curricula. Aims: This International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Chronobiology and Chronotherapy Task Force position paper reports a Delphi study-based international consensus statement on what is essential for mental health clinicians to know about the chronobiology and chronotherapy of BD. Methods: An initial pool of statements was derived via review of academic and grey literatures. Statements were rated on a 5-point scale (essential; important; don't know/depends; unimportant; should not be included). Consensus was reached when statements were rated as essential or important by ≥80% of experts. Two young persons with lived experience of BD gave feedback on acceptability. Results: Thirty experts from 15 countries in Europe, North and South America, and the Asia Pacific participated (mean age 55.3 years [SD=11.8]; 40% female; 83% psychiatrists; mean clinical and research experience of 26 [SD=10.8] and 22 years [SD=12.6], respectively). Eight-hundred-and-forty-seven ratings occurred across 12 core constructs and three rounds; 470 statements were discarded after one round and 35 were discarded after rerating. Consensus was reached on 342 statements spanning four themes: basic circadian science; circadian health and disruption; chronobiology of BD; and six chronotherapies (e.g., key protocols, outcomes, side effects, risks/contraindications). Conclusions: This position paper summarises an international consensus statement on the essential information about the chronobiology and chronotherapy of BD that is intended to help clinicians optimise their management of individuals with BD. This knowledge is available online ( https://osf.io/agk9y ) and its dissemination is expected to enhance the training and efficacy of clinicians globally.
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 | 0.092 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".