MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414179782 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.585

Risk of Respiratory Disease in people with Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

2025· article· en· W4414179782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antonio Jiménez, D. Laguna, Marco Antonio Alarcón, M. Reyes, Marta Jaén, Fernando Sarramea

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDAsthmaLung cancerOdds ratioPopulationPneumoniaSystematic reviewMEDLINERespiratory disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction People with bipolar disorder (BD) have an increased risk of premature mortality, and the respiratory mortality rate is higher than those of the general population. However, the evidence on respiratory disease in this population has not been meta-analyzed. Objectives To systematically review and meta-analyze the frequency of respiratory diseases in patients with BD and to compare prevalence and Odds Ratio (OR) with the general population. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, PsycINFO, Scielo and Scopus from inception to June 2, 2023, and a snowball search of reference and citation lists was conducted. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting diagnoses of respiratory diseases (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia, lung cancer and tuberculosis) in people with BD according to operationalized criteria and where possible, control group. This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and MOOSE reporting guidelines. A pair of reviewers independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and a senior co-author was consulted in cases of disagreement. The risk of bias and methodological quality was assessed using the adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results Of the 2,158 articles screened, 20 including 962,352 people with BD and 37,340,405 control group, met the inclusion criteria (see Figure 1). Prevalence and OR of respiratory disease in people with BD was the main outcome as percentage point estimates with corresponding 95% CIs. In people with BD, the prevalence of COPD was 9.14% (95%CI: 6.61%-12.5%), asthma 6.4% (95%CI: 4.56%-8.91%), pneumonia 2.78% (95%CI: 2.51%-3.08%) and lung cancer 0.44% (95%CI:0.23%-0.84%) (see Figure 2). Compared to the general population (see Figure 3), people with BD had significantly higher rates of COPD (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.40-2.14), showing an increased rate in younger and female patients; asthma (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.25-2.94), with a greater rate in younger patients; and pneumonia (OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.33-5.99). Image 1: Image 2: Image 3: Conclusions In the first meta-analysis on the topic, BD was associated with an increased risk of respiratory illness versus the general population. In COPD and asthma, young people and women are at particular risk. Prevention programs are urgently needed. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.032
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207