Abstract

BackgroundUntil recently, actigraphy studies in bipolar disorders focused on sleep rather than daytime activity in mania or depression, and have failed to analyse mixed episodes separately. Furthermore, even those studies that assessed activity parameters reported only mean levels rather than complexity or predictability of activity. We identified cases presenting in one of three acute phases of bipolar disorder and examined whether the application of non-linear dynamic models to the description of objectively measured activity can be used to predict case classification.MethodsThe sample comprised 34 adults who were hospitalized with an acute episode of mania (n = 16), bipolar depression (n = 12), or a mixed state (n = 6), who agreed to wear an actiwatch for a continuous period of 24 h. Mean level, variability, regularity, entropy, and predictability of activity were recorded for a defined 64-min active morning and active evening period. Discriminant function analysis was used to determine the combination of variables that best classified cases based on phase of illness.ResultsThe model identified two discriminant functions: the first was statistically significant and correlated with intra-individual fluctuation in activity and regularity of activity (sample entropy) in the active morning period; the second correlated with several measures of activity from the evening period (e.g. Fourier analysis, autocorrelation, sample entropy). A classification table generated from both functions correctly classified 79% of all cases based on phase of illness (χ2 = 36.21; df 4; p = 0.001). However, 42% of bipolar depression cases were misclassified as being in manic phase.ConclusionsThe findings should be treated with caution as this was a small-scale pilot study and we did not control for prescribed treatments, medication adherence, etc. However, the insights gained should encourage more widespread adoption of statistical approaches to the classification of cases alongside the application of more sophisticated modelling of activity patterns. The difficulty of accurately classifying cases of bipolar depression requires further research, as it is unclear whether the lower prediction rate reflects weaknesses in a model based only on actigraphy data, or if it reflects clinical reality i.e. the possibility that there may be more than one subtype of bipolar depression.

Highlights

  • Until recently, actigraphy studies in bipolar disorders focused on sleep rather than daytime activity in mania or depression, and have failed to analyse mixed episodes separately

  • This study focuses on combinations of variables, so the findings of the multivariate analysis of vari‐ ance (MANOVA) were used only to determine if age and gender should be included in the discriminant function analysis (DFA)

  • The MANOVA showed that the overall pattern of activity differed significantly between groups (F = 2.81, p = 0.028), and by age (F = 2.69, p = 0.037), but not by gender (F = 1.25, p = 0.39)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Actigraphy studies in bipolar disorders focused on sleep rather than daytime activity in mania or depression, and have failed to analyse mixed episodes separately Even those studies that assessed activity parameters reported only mean levels rather than complexity or predictability of activity. The use of non-linear mathematical models to explore the regularity, predictability, or complexity of activity patterns is limited (Salvatore et al 2008; Indic et al 2011; Gonzalez et al 2014; Merikangas et al 2014; Pagani et al 2016; Gershon et al 2016; Grierson et al 2016; Scott et al 2016b) and only Krane-Gartiser et al (2014, 2015, 2016) have used such approaches with inpatient samples that comprised cases with mood disorders only. We lack insights into whether specific combination of activity measures may classify different phases of BD and only one study to date (of paediatric BD vs. attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) has attempted to explore whether combinations of rest-activity variables can be used to discriminate between diagnostic groups (Faedda et al 2016)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call