Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40032711›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2025

Predominant Polarity for Enhanced Phenotyping and Personalized Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Narrative Review on Recent Findings.

Giovanna Fico, Marta Bort, Meritxell Gonzalez-Campos, Giulia D'Alessandro, Michele De Prisco, Vincenzo Oliva, Gerard Anmella, Constanza Sommerhoff, Eduard Vieta, Andrea Murru

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The role of predominant polarity in older age bipolar disorder.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Giovanna FicoDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.
Marta BortDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.
Meritxell Gonzalez-CamposDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.
Giulia D'AlessandroDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.
Michele De PriscoDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.
Vincenzo OlivaDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.
Gerard AnmellaDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.
Constanza SommerhoffDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.
Eduard VietaDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain. evieta@clinic.cat.
Andrea MurruDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences (UBNeuro), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Casanova, 143, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis paper explores Predominant Polarity (PP) in Bipolar Disorder (BD), defined as the predominance of either manic or depressive episodes over a patient's course of illness. We examine its clinical relevance, neurobiological foundations, and potential for guiding personalized treatment strategies. The review seeks to determine whether PP is a reliable course specifier and how it can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes. RECENT

findingsPP has a significant impact on prognosis and treatment planning in BD. Manic and depressive PP are associated with distinct clinical and neurobiological profiles of BD, while individuals without a clear predominance of either episode type represent a more severe to-treat subgroup of patients. The development of the Polarity Index (PI) facilitates treatment decisions based on PP. PP offers a valuable framework for refining BD treatment and understanding its complexity. Future research should focus on refining PP definitions, validating neurobiological markers, and integrating these insights into comprehensive treatment models to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderPrecision MedicineHumansPhenotypeBipolar disorderEndophenotypeNeurobiologyPolarity indexPredominant polaritySubphenotype

Identifiers

PMID40032711
PMCPMC12003578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.