ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Measurement-Based Care Benchmarks and Bipolar Classification in ABCD Youth.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To test whether two brief mania measures, the Parent General Behavior Inventory-10 Mania form (PGBI-10M) and 7-Up, retain useful psychometric properties in a large population cohort, and to evaluate whether the PGBI-10M can identify Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (KSADS)-defined bipolar spectrum disorders in that setting. Method: Analyses used 11,000+ youths across late childhood and early adolescence from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. For both PGBI-10M and 7-Up, we estimated descriptive statistics, internal consistency, confirmatory factor models, graded response models, and measurement-based care benchmarks (minimally important difference, reliable change, and clinical cutpoints). For the PGBI-10M, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses estimated concurrent classification accuracy for bipolar diagnoses at baseline and 2-year follow-up and compared area under the curve (AUC) values with prior outpatient and community mental health samples. Results: Scores were lower than in clinical samples, but both measures remained psychometrically sound. The PGBI-10M showed alpha=.87-.88 and omega=.88; the 7-Up showed alpha=.78 and omega=.79. Longitudinal analyses indicated threshold differences across waves, likely reflecting caregiver recalibration and developmental changes, with modest impact on estimates. ABCD-based benchmarks supported meaningful and reliable change. The PGBI-10M discriminated bipolar cases (AUC=0.68 baseline; 0.77 follow-up), though performance was lower than in clinical samples. Positive predictive values were low in this population. Conclusion: The PGBI-10M and 7-Up support monitoring of manic and mixed symptoms, but the PGBI-10M alone is insufficient for universal bipolar screening. Brief mania scales are best used for targeted assessment and longitudinal monitoring within multi-informant workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.