MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analytical Imprecision and Therapeutic Intervals for Lithium – Are There Implications for Old Age Patients with Bipolar Disorder?

2025· article· en· W4416399349 on OpenAlexafffund
Janet R. Zhou, Nethra Chittiprol, Peter A. Kavsak, Felix Leung, Zahraa Ali-Mohammed, Saranya Arnoldo, Heather Tysick, Lei Fu, Sara A. Love, Rajeevan Selvaratnam

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Biochemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLakeridge HealthWilliam Osler Health SystemThe Scarborough HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMcMaster University
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsLithium (medication)Verifiable secret sharingTask (project management)Bipolar disorderTherapeutic approachConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• ISBD proposed therapeutic intervals for old age are verifiable by real-world data. • Manufacuter cited therapeutic limit of 1.2 mmol/L should not be readily adopted. • Sufficient precision and method agreement exists around lithium therapeutic ranges. • At 0.4 mmol/L, overall imprecision across common lithium methods is 8.6 % CV. • The derived upper therapeutic limit of lithium is 0.91 mmol/L for younger adults. Monitoring blood levels of lithium is important for maintaining therapeutic efficacy. Age-dependent therapeutic intervals have been recommended by the International Society for Bipolar Disorder (ISBD) task force, 0.4–0.8 mmol/L and 0.4–0.7 mmol/L for adults aged 60–79 and ≥80 years old, respectively. However, the suitability of common colorimetric methods for lithium measurements in the suggested therapeutic intervals has not been characterized, nor has the proposed therapeutic interval been confirmed with real world patient data. Serum samples spiked with various concentrations of lithium ranging from 0 – 3.5 mmol/L were analyzed on six different methods for imprecision and relative comparability of lithium measurements. An indirect reference interval approach using refineR was employed to derive therapeutic limits using patient results spanning 5 years and compared with the recommended therapeutic intervals by the ISBD task force. Routinely employed colorimetric methods for lithium measurements have sufficient precision within the proposed therapeutic intervals, although select colorimetric methods are notably more imprecise at 0.4 mmol/L. The derived therapeutic intervals using patient data align with those proposed by the ISBD task force for older adults. Routine colorimetric methods used for lithium measurements have adequate precision and detection capabilities in the therapeutic windows proposed by the ISBD task force. In addition, the proposed therapeutic intervals are verifiable by real-world patient data.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical BiochemistrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207