ArticleBipolar disorders2026
Can We Improve the Prediction of Early Onset Mania and Hypomania in the Community?
Article in Bipolar disorders, 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
Abstract
backgroundThere is broad agreement that the onset of bipolar disorders (BD) can be predicted by using combined estimates of familial, genetic and clinical risk. However, there is a lack of consensus about the operationalisation of different risk attributes (e.g., symptoms vs. sub-threshold syndromes; disorder-specific polygenic risk scores [PRS] vs. multiple-disorder PRS dimensions) and their utility for predicting bipolar type 1 (BD-I) and 2 (BD-II). Likewise, analyses often fail to consider the optimal model for predicting outcomes where true cases will be in the minority. METHODOLOGY: Proof of concept study employing an ensemble machine learning approach (Boosting) to develop models for classifying BD cases vs. non-cases using different combinations of risk attributes extracted from a database from a prospective longitudinal follow-up of twin and non-twin siblings in the peak age range for onset of major mental disorders.
resultsOf 1473 participants (mean age 26.3; female = 866), 104 developed BD-I (n = 30) or BD-II (n = 74). The best performing Boosting classification had an overall area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 85.1% (95% Confidence Intervals: 80%, 88%); correctly identifying 86.7% BD cases. Variables with greatest relative influence were, in rank order: depressive symptoms, psychotic symptoms, a BD-Schizophrenia PRS dimension, hypomanic symptoms, and family history of BD. The model accurately classified 89% of manic cases but only 68% of hypomanic cases.
conclusionsImproving the accurate prediction of BD onset would benefit from greater consensus regarding the operationalisation of known risk attributes and selection of analytic models that consider sample imbalances.
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.