Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical implications of a staging model for bipolar disorders

Kapczinski, Flávio, Dias, Vasco Videira, Kauer-Sant’Anna, Marcia, Frey, Benicio Noronha, Grassi-Oliveira, Rodrigo, Colom, Francesc, Berk, Michael·2009·Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics

Abstract

A model of staging in the field of bipolar disorder (BD) should offer a means for clinicians to predict response to treatment and more general outcome measures, such as the level of functioning and autonomy. The present staging model emphasizes the assessment of patients in the interepisodic period and includes: latent phase: individuals who present mood and anxiety symptoms and increased risk for developing threshold BD; Stage I--patients with BD who present well established periods of euthymia and absence of overt psychiatric morbidity between episodes; Stage II--patients who present rapid cycling or current axis I or II comorbidities; Stage III--patients who present a clinically relevant pattern of cognitive and functioning deterioration, as well as altered biomarkers; and Stage IV--patients who are unable to live autonomously and present altered brain scans and biomarkers. Such a model implies a longitudinal appraisal of clinical variables, as well as assessment of neurocognition and biomarkers in the interepisodic period. Staging facilitates understanding of the mechanisms underlying progression of the disorder, assists in treatment planning and prognosis and, finally, underscores the imperative for early intervention.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1586/ern.09.31

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 96 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Rosa, 2007, Clin. Pract. Epidemol. Ment. Health, 7, 3
  2. Kauer-Sant’Anna, 2008, Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol., 4, 1
  3. Berk, 2008, Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol., 16, 1
  4. Grassi-Oliveira, 2008, Psico, 39, 275
  5. Monkul, 2005, Aust. NZ J. Psychiatry, 39, 222, 10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01571.x · DOI
  6. Savas, 2005, Klin. Psikiyatri Derg., 8, 180
  7. Andreazza, 2009, J. Psychiatry Neurosci.
  8. Torres, 2007, Acta. Psychiatr. Scand. Suppl., 434, 17, 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01055.x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Kapczinski, F., Dias, V. V., Kauer-Sant’Anna, M., Frey, B. N., Grassi-Oliveira, R., Colom, F., & Berk, M.
Venue
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics
Published
2009-07
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
957-966
ISSN
  • 1473-7175 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-8360
OpenAlex
W2096948995
Cited by
263
References
96
FWCI
6.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical implications of a staging model for bipolar disorders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1586/ern.09.31
The paper
Kapczinski, F., Dias, V. V., Kauer-Sant’Anna, M., Frey, B. N., Grassi-Oliveira, R., Colom, F., & Berk, M. (2009). Clinical implications of a staging model for bipolar disorders. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1586/ern.09.31

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.