�븳援��삎 �뼇洹뱀꽦 �옣�븷 �빟臾쇱튂猷� �븣怨좊━�벉 2010: �떎瑜� 移섎즺 吏�移⑤뱾怨쇱쓽 鍮꾧탳
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) was developed in 2002 and thereafter revised in 2006. It was secondly revised in 2010 (KMAP-BP 2010). The aim of this study was to compare KMAP-BP 2010 with other recently published treatment algorithm and guidelines for bipolar disorder. The authors reviewed the 4 recently published guidelines and treatment algorithms for bipolar disorder [The British Association for Psychopharmacology Guideline for Treatment of Bipolar Disorder, Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Bipolar Disorder, The World Federation Society of Biological Psychiatry Guideline for Biological Treatment of Bipolar Disorder and National Institute for Health and Clinical Experience (NICE) Clinical Guideline] to compare the similarities and discrepancies between KMAP-BP 2010 and the others. In aspects of treatment options, most treatment guidelines had some similarities. But there were notable discrepancies between the recommendations of other guidelines and those of KMAP-BP in which combination or adjunctive treatments were favored. Most guidelines advocated new atypical antipsychotics as first-line treatment option in nearly all phases of bipolar disorder and lamotrigine in depressive phase and maintenance phase. Lithium and valproic acid were still commonly used as mood stabilizers in manic phase and strongly recommended valproic acid in mixed or psychotic mania. Mood stabilizers or atypical antipsychotics were selected as first-line treatment option in maintenance treatment. As the more evidences were accumulated, more use of atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine, aripiprazole and ziprasidone were prominent. This review suggests that the medication strategies of bipolar disorder have been reflected the recent studies and clinical experiences, and the consultation of treatment guidelines may provide clinicians with useful information and a rationale for making sequential treatment decisions. It also has been consistently stressed that treatment algorithm or guidelines are not a substitute for clinical judgment; they may serve as a critical reference to complement of individual clinical judgment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 it