History of Bipolar Disorder: From Ancient Descriptions to Modern Diagnosis
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Bipolar disorder has a long history of clinical observation and a much shorter history as a defined psychiatric diagnosis. Physicians in antiquity described mania, melancholia, and sometimes a relationship between them; nineteenth-century clinicians developed models of recurring states; twentieth-century investigators separated bipolar from unipolar depressive illness; and contemporary diagnostic manuals specify distinct episodes, disorders, and course features. The history of bipolar disorder is therefore a history of changing clinical questions: what counts as an episode, how symptoms recur over a lifetime, and which observations justify distinguishing one condition from another. A major historical review in the Journal of Affective Disorders traces these successive turning points.
Present-day bipolar disorder is a clinical category involving particular patterns of mania or hypomania, often alongside depression, with consequences for functioning and treatment. It is diagnosed through a clinical assessment of episodes and longitudinal course, rather than by identifying an ancient description, recognizing a personality style, or completing a single questionnaire. The National Institute of Mental Health and NICE bipolar disorder guideline explain why episode history and differential diagnosis matter. This article follows how the clinical concept emerged, what changed, what remains debated, and why the history matters for people seeking accurate care today.
For additional clinical context, see Bipolar Disorder: Symptoms, Types, Diagnosis, and Treatment and Manic Depression vs Bipolar Disorder: Terminology and Diagnostic History.
A historical timeline: major milestones
Ancient Greek medical writings discussed mania and melancholia; medical authors of the early Roman imperial period, particularly Aretaeus of Cappadocia, articulated connections between these states. In 1851 Jean-Pierre Falret described folie circulaire, or circular insanity, and in 1854 Jules Baillarger discussed folie à double forme, or dual-form insanity. In 1899 Emil Kraepelin presented an influential broad model of manic-depressive insanity. Research in the 1960s helped validate a distinction between bipolar and unipolar affective illness. DSM-III in 1980 contributed to the operationalized modern diagnostic approach, while DSM-5 in 2013 and DSM-5-TR in 2022 refined the classification. The 2024 WHO ICD-11 clinical manual provides a current international framework. These dates refer to publications and classification milestones, not to the first human occurrence of the condition. Mason, Brown, and Croarkin's historical review and WHO's ICD-11 diagnostic manual document these developments.
Ancient medicine: mania and melancholia before bipolar disorder
The ancient Greek terms mania and melancholia existed within a medical world that understood illness through explanations very different from modern neuroscience and psychiatry. Melancholia was historically associated with black bile in humoral medicine; mania often described severe disturbances of emotion, thought, behavior, or perception. Their meanings were broad and changed by author, period, and context. A passage mentioning mania might describe a presentation that today would fall within a mood, psychotic, medical, or substance-related condition. For that reason, the presence of an ancient word is evidence about the history of medical language, rather than proof of a corresponding modern diagnosis. A historical analysis of ancient Western literature details how variable those terms were.
Some texts in the Hippocratic corpus describe relationships between disturbed states that have been read as forerunners of later ideas about shifts in mood. These early records matter because clinicians were already attending to the temporal relationship between suffering, excitement, and altered behavior. They do not establish that the writers had criteria for bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder, hypomania, or a modern differential diagnosis. Retrospective classification of a historical person is especially uncertain when the original documentation lacks information about duration, illness-free intervals, impairment, medical causes, and lifelong course. The 2016 review of diagnostic history places Hippocratic accounts in their appropriate historical setting.
Aretaeus of Cappadocia and the relationship between mania and melancholia
Aretaeus, generally placed in the first or second century CE, is frequently credited with noticing a close relationship between mania and melancholia. His descriptions suggested that apparently different clinical states could be connected within a person's illness. For historians of bipolar disorder, this is an important intellectual precursor: it is a move from treating each state in isolation toward asking how they belong to a common disease process. The influential review Bipolarity from Ancient to Modern Times identifies his account as a possible early expression of that linkage.
Historians disagree, however, about how closely his explanation matches bipolar disorder as currently defined. A detailed philological and psychiatric study by Godderis argues that Aretaeus is better regarded as a precursor of a broader unitary concept of mental illness than as the inventor of manic-depressive psychosis. This disagreement is substantial: nineteenth- and twentieth-century psychiatry introduced much more specific ideas about episode polarity, recurrence, the relationship between psychosis and mood, and clinical outcome. The strongest historical conclusion is that Aretaeus helped connect mania and melancholia in medical thought. Calling him the first psychiatrist to diagnose modern bipolar disorder would put a later classification into his work.
From antiquity through early modern psychiatry
European and Middle Eastern medical traditions continued to discuss melancholia, mania, and related conditions across many centuries, but theories of the brain, body, religious life, and environment were heterogeneous. Ancient categories entered medical teaching and were repeatedly reinterpreted; the same word could refer to a different group of symptoms in a different century. The relationship between mood changes and other mental disturbances remained difficult to specify when clinicians had few systematic longitudinal records. The importance of this period lies in transmission and reinterpretation of clinical observations, not in a steady march toward one inevitable diagnostic label. Historical scholarship on ancient medical writing illustrates the limits of projecting current terminology backward.
During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, medicine increasingly developed dedicated institutions, case descriptions, and efforts to classify mental disorders according to observable features. The possibility of following a patient over time made recurrence and sequence more visible. This changing institutional setting helped clinicians pose a new question: could apparent attacks of excitement, depression, and recovery belong to a single recurring illness? It was this question that became central in the French psychiatric debates of the 1850s. Pichot's historical examination of Falret and Baillarger emphasizes that their proposals arose within competing theories of the nature of psychiatric disease.
1851–1854: Falret, Baillarger, and the birth of the modern clinical concept
Jean-Pierre Falret's description of folie circulaire in 1851 was a crucial shift. His account concerned recurring periods of mania and depression, often separated by intervals of relative recovery. He argued for understanding the sequence and pattern as a particular clinical illness, rather than as two wholly separate disorders happening to the same person. That longitudinal orientation remains central to contemporary diagnosis. In a major historical review, Angst and Marneros locate the birth of the modern concept in Falret's work and the publications that followed.
Jules Baillarger presented folie à double forme in 1854. His model also linked depressive and excited phases but placed different emphasis on the transition between them and the necessity of an interval of apparent health. Modern summaries sometimes flatten the two theories into identical discoveries. In fact, the priority debate was contentious and reflected substantive differences in observation and disease theory. A scholarly reconstruction of the Falret–Baillarger dispute shows why both physicians deserve historical attention without treating their ideas as already equivalent to twenty-first-century diagnostic criteria.
This nineteenth-century breakthrough also exposed an enduring dilemma. The same person may experience episodes with different polarity and very different levels of severity; repeated observation can reveal connections that a cross-sectional examination misses. Yet not every alternation between sadness and excitement is a bipolar episode. Modern categories impose defined thresholds for duration, intensity, activity or energy change, and impairment. The clinical lineage from Falret and Baillarger is therefore strongest in the attention to recurrence and sequence, rather than in a one-to-one transfer of old descriptions to current diagnostic subtypes. NICE's assessment recommendations emphasize exactly this lifetime and longitudinal history.
Late nineteenth-century psychiatry: cyclothymia, course, and Kraepelin
Nineteenth-century German-speaking psychiatry developed systematic clinical approaches to symptom patterns and the course of mental illness. The work associated with Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum and Ewald Hecker contributed to descriptions of cyclothymic presentations, while other clinicians investigated recurrent and mixed states. The meaning of cyclothymia in those earlier writings should be distinguished from today's formal category of cyclothymic disorder. Historical researchers describe a sequence of changing constructs rather than a single definition transmitted without modification. The historical review by Angst and Marneros discusses the evolution of cyclothymia, related temperaments, and mixed presentations.
Emil Kraepelin gave affective disorders a new organizing framework. In the 1899 edition of his psychiatric textbook he developed the broad category of manic-depressive insanity, encompassing a wider range of recurrent affective presentations than present-day bipolar disorder. His emphasis on course and outcome contrasted with his classification of dementia praecox, which later influenced concepts of schizophrenia. This approach made the patient's history across multiple episodes central to nosology. At the same time, Kraepelin's broad category included cases that today's clinicians might classify as recurrent unipolar depression. Mason and colleagues and Angst and Marneros document both the reach and the limits of this influential classification.
Kraepelin also recognized that affective states do not always present in neat alternation. Mixed clinical presentations, in which symptoms traditionally associated with opposite poles occur together, were part of the historical discussion. The contemporary specifier with mixed features is one descendant of that problem, although its operational definition is different. Historical categories are best understood as successive working models designed to improve description and prediction. The practical question has always been whether a classification helps clinicians recognize the illness course and make safer care decisions. A review of DSM-5 revisions explains the more recent handling of mixed features.
The twentieth-century separation of bipolar and unipolar illness
For much of the first half of the twentieth century, Kraepelin's broad manic-depressive concept remained influential. Clinicians nevertheless observed substantial differences between people with recurrent depressive episodes and people who also experienced mania or hypomania. Family patterns, age at onset, episode recurrence, and clinical course offered possible ways to test whether these were meaningfully distinct groups. A central achievement of postwar psychiatric research was to treat this as an empirical question rather than as an inherited classification rule. A historical synthesis identifies major contributions by the Wernicke–Kleist–Leonhard tradition and later investigators.
During the 1960s, studies associated with Jules Angst, Carlo Perris, and George Winokur helped establish the clinical and familial grounds for distinguishing bipolar from unipolar affective disorders. The distinction changed diagnosis and research design: samples defined by recurrent depression alone could no longer automatically be considered equivalent to samples containing manic illness. This separation remains relevant when clinicians investigate depressive symptoms and ask about prior episodes of elevated or irritable mood with increased activity and energy. Angst and Marneros' peer-reviewed history identifies these studies as the modern re-emergence of bipolarity.
That distinction should not be mistaken for a claim that all patients fit cleanly into two biologically uniform groups. Psychiatric diagnosis has always involved variation in course, symptom expression, and comorbidity. Researchers continue to study diagnostic boundaries and overlapping vulnerabilities. The contemporary term bipolar spectrum is used in the scientific literature with differing definitions; it does not itself create an extra official diagnosis. For patient care, the first task is to determine whether established criteria for a specific disorder or episode are met, and whether another medical, substance-related, or psychiatric explanation better fits the evidence. A review of DSM-5 diagnostic controversies discusses these classification challenges.
How the name changed: manic-depressive illness and bipolar disorder
The older names manic-depressive insanity, manic-depressive illness, and manic depression reflect different periods of psychiatric language. They helped connect manic and depressive states, but their everyday use often concealed important differences among patients. The modern term bipolar foregrounds the existence of elevated and depressed poles within a group of related disorders. It is also more compatible with separate categories for bipolar I, bipolar II, and cyclothymic disorder. The NIMH still mentions manic-depressive illness as an older name, while current clinical materials use bipolar and related disorders.
No single historical year explains every adoption of the word bipolar. The terminology evolved through mid-twentieth-century clinical research and successive classification manuals, with professional usage changing across countries and disciplines. Equally, a person describing a relative as manic depressive may be using a former medical label or a loose everyday expression; the phrase alone cannot establish a modern diagnosis. A dedicated companion article in the English Hub will examine the terminology and diagnostic-history comparison in its own right; the present history follows the broader evolution of observations, categories, and clinical methods.
DSM-III, DSM-5, DSM-5-TR, and the operational diagnosis
The publication of DSM-III in 1980 was a major step toward more explicitly specified diagnostic criteria and a more reproducible language for psychiatric research and practice. The bipolar category became increasingly tied to identifiable episodes rather than to a general impression of emotional instability. Subsequent revisions developed distinctions between bipolar I and bipolar II, as well as related conditions and specifiers. The underlying aim was to establish criteria clinicians could apply while still requiring judgment about context and causes. The historical examination of DSM bipolar criteria traces these transitions and their controversies.
DSM-5, published in 2013, placed bipolar and related disorders in a separate chapter rather than treating them as an undifferentiated part of the depressive disorders chapter. It also added the requirement for abnormally increased activity or energy alongside mood disturbance in the criteria for mania and hypomania, and revised how mixed features were recorded. The 2022 DSM-5-TR revised descriptive text and certain criteria to improve clarity. These revisions show that diagnostic rules are historical products continually tested against clinical usefulness and research. The 2015 clinical analysis of DSM changes, the American Psychiatric Association's DSM explanation, and its clinical bipolar overview provide the relevant context.
Under current U.S. terminology, bipolar I disorder requires at least one manic episode; a past major depressive episode is common but not required for the diagnosis. Bipolar II disorder requires at least one hypomanic episode and at least one major depressive episode, without any history of mania. Cyclothymic disorder involves chronic fluctuations of hypomanic and depressive symptoms that do not satisfy the full episode criteria. The specific distinctions depend on episode duration, severity, degree of impairment, and clinical history. Bipolar II is a distinct diagnostic course, not a harmless version of bipolar I. NIMH's explanation of bipolar types makes this clinical differentiation accessible.
ICD-11 and the international diagnostic framework
The World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases provides another major system for defining and recording mental disorders around the world. ICD-11 formally distinguishes bipolar type I disorder, bipolar type II disorder, and other relevant mood disorder presentations. Its clinical guidance is designed for use across health systems rather than only within U.S. diagnostic practice. WHO published its Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders in 2024. The official WHO publication sets out the purpose and scope of that manual.
DSM and ICD provide structured shared terminology, yet they are not identical in every criterion or clinical coding convention. A responsible historical account therefore separates the evolution of broad disease concepts from the latest version of a particular manual. It also avoids treating diagnostic codes as biological tests. Presently, no single blood test, brain scan, or questionnaire determines bipolar disorder in clinical practice. Clinicians assess illness episodes, functioning, possible psychiatric and medical alternatives, and the temporal pattern over the person's life. NIMH and NICE describe this process in practical terms.
The history of treatment: lithium and evidence-based clinical care
Treatment history runs alongside diagnostic history, but advances in medication did not simply prove the validity of a label. Approaches to acute disturbance changed as hospital care, physical treatments, controlled clinical trials, and later psychopharmacology evolved. Electroconvulsive therapy was introduced in the twentieth century and continues to have a role in selected severe presentations under specialist care. Its historical existence does not mean it is interchangeable with medication or indicated for every bipolar episode. The development of modern interventions also made the distinction between treatment of acute mania, bipolar depression, and long-term prevention essential. A peer-reviewed history of pharmacological treatment reviews these transitions.
Lithium is the best-known historical treatment milestone. John Cade published observations on its use for mania in 1949; Mogens Schou's research, including a controlled trial reported in 1954, contributed to establishing its therapeutic role. The United States authorized lithium for medical marketing for mania in 1970. These landmarks matter because treatment claims increasingly became questions for clinical evidence, replication, and safety monitoring rather than inference from a few observations. They should not be read as a recommendation for a particular person. Edward Shorter's history of lithium therapy places Cade, Schou, regulation, and the scientific debates in context.
In the following decades, treatment options expanded to include particular anticonvulsants, second-generation antipsychotics, phase-specific pharmacotherapy, and structured psychotherapies supporting adherence, sleep-wake regularity, relationships, and relapse management. Present guidelines distinguish evidence for different phases of illness. Lithium may be appropriate in several phases but needs kidney and thyroid monitoring and attention to serum concentrations and medication interactions. Valproate involves substantial reproductive and other safety concerns; lamotrigine requires careful initiation because of rare severe skin reactions; antipsychotics have agent-specific metabolic and movement-related risks. Antidepressants used without appropriate mood-stabilizing management can cause problems in some bipolar presentations. The CANMAT/ISBD evidence update, 2023 VA/DoD guideline, and NICE recommendations address treatment choices and safety monitoring. Medication should be started, changed, or discontinued with the prescribing clinician.
Why the distinction between mania and hypomania became so important
Earlier classifications often emphasized the presence of excitation and depression without today's formal distinction between levels of mood elevation. Contemporary diagnosis distinguishes mania from hypomania through a combination of clinical features, episode duration, severity, impairment, hospitalization, and psychotic symptoms. Hypomania can be clinically important even when the person continues functioning; mania ordinarily carries much greater functional disruption and may require hospital care. An episode with psychotic features is not classified as hypomania. The NIMH bipolar disorder guide summarizes the clinical distinction.
The development of a separate bipolar II category helped clinicians recognize people whose illness may be dominated by substantial depression and less obvious periods of hypomania. This was a shift in the visibility of the disorder: many patients present during depression, and hypomanic episodes may not initially be reported as problematic. Taking a longitudinal history, asking about changes in activity and sleep, and when appropriate seeking a family member's observations can materially change assessment. It is equally important to investigate other explanations for restlessness, emotional change, or increased energy. NICE's assessment framework specifically covers past elevated activity, corroborating history, comorbidity, and differential diagnosis.
Mixed presentations, rapid cycling, and the limits of a two-pole picture
The term bipolar can suggest a simple alternation between two opposite emotional states. Clinical experience and historical research offer a more complex picture. Some people experience depressive and manic symptoms in close temporal association or in overlapping patterns. Mixed states appeared in classical psychiatric discussions long before recent DSM revisions, and modern manuals use specific episode descriptions and specifiers rather than equating any emotionally inconsistent day with a mixed episode. Historical scholarship and the DSM-5 revision literature help distinguish the ancestry of mixed states from current definitions.
Rapid cycling is a course specifier referring to a defined number of distinct mood episodes within a year, rather than a label for ordinary hour-to-hour changes in feeling. Clinical courses also involve partial and full remission, recurrence, and periods in which residual symptoms or functional difficulties persist. Recognizing the person's longitudinal pattern is especially important for safe assessment and treatment planning. NIMH explains the standard rapid-cycling concept, and NICE recommends documenting symptoms between episodes and patterns of relapse.
What history teaches about misdiagnosis and differential diagnosis
An illness category can become more precise while assessment remains challenging. Depressive episodes may precede the first recognized manic or hypomanic episode by years; psychotic experiences may require a careful distinction between mood-associated psychosis and other disorders; overlapping anxiety, ADHD symptoms, substance effects, and sleep disturbance can obscure the temporal pattern. The history of bipolar nosology shows why a single symptom cannot settle a diagnosis: similar observations can belong to different clinical courses. NIMH's diagnostic overview and NICE's differential-diagnosis recommendations identify these issues.
The present-day assessment includes the timing and length of episodes, changes from baseline, functional consequences, family history, medication and substance exposure, physical health conditions such as thyroid disease, psychotic symptoms, and the possibility of other psychiatric diagnoses. An online bipolar screening score may motivate a conversation with a clinician but cannot reconstruct this history or replace the evaluation. A person with unusual sleep or mood changes deserves individualized assessment without assuming an illness from a search result. NICE's structured clinical assessment section provides a detailed account of this clinical work.
Culture, patient experience, and changing meanings
Diagnostic histories are also histories of what clinicians chose to record and whose experiences were heard. Older clinical descriptions often came from people receiving institutional care, which could overrepresent severe presentations and underrepresent those who remained outside psychiatric services. Concepts and vocabulary were produced in particular medical institutions and languages. This shapes the historical record and helps explain why a nineteenth-century category cannot be treated as a timeless census of everyone with bipolar disorder. The central distinction is between evidence that certain behaviors were noticed and evidence that present-day diagnostic thresholds were satisfied. The historical criteria review supplies the conceptual basis for this caution.
Contemporary care increasingly asks about recovery goals, social circumstances, the impact of stigma, relationships, and the person's own interpretation of episodes. The diagnostic label should facilitate an evidence-informed plan, communication with services, and prevention of further harm. Its value does not depend on a romantic image of mania as genius or creativity, and depression should not be reduced to ordinary sadness. NICE's care and recovery recommendations integrate clinical assessment with functioning, psychological support, physical health, and personal goals.
What scientists still debate
Disagreement about categories has continued from Falret and Baillarger through contemporary discussions of symptom spectra, mixed features, and boundaries with other disorders. A central scientific question is how well standardized diagnoses describe underlying mechanisms, predict illness course, or forecast treatment response. Large research programs investigate genetics, circadian physiology, neurodevelopment, clinical trajectories, and brain function, but their findings do not convert an individual diagnostic evaluation into a laboratory test. Current classifications are practical, evolving clinical tools, as the DSM-5 diagnostic discussion makes clear.
The historical lesson is methodological. Claims about a condition need evidence appropriate to the claim: primary texts and historical scholarship for what physicians wrote, longitudinal and family studies for distinctions between courses of illness, diagnostic-validation research for criteria, and clinical trials and guidelines for treatments. A theory that illuminates one of these questions may not answer another. A compelling anecdote about an ancient thinker or famous artist is not a substitute for clinical evidence. The strongest accounts preserve this relationship between sources and conclusions.
When does the history matter in clinical practice today?
The history helps clinicians and patients understand why diagnosis emphasizes episodes over momentary emotional changes, why a history of hypomania may matter even when depression is the presenting problem, and why apparently similar experiences may require different treatment approaches. It also clarifies why bipolar disorder is not defined by exactly equal periods of mania and depression. A person may have substantial depressive burden, rare episodes of elevation, or long intervals between episodes. Treatment and follow-up depend on the documented clinical pattern. NIMH describes this variability, while VA/DoD's 2023 guidance provides phase-specific clinical decision pathways.
For family members, learning the course-oriented view encourages observation of sustained changes in sleep, energy, speech, judgment, and functioning rather than labeling everyday disagreements as episodes. For patients, accurate dates and examples of significant changes can assist the assessment, particularly when an episode was not experienced as distressing at the time. For clinicians, it reinforces the importance of investigating comorbidity, medical causes, and prior treatment response. Decisions about medication, relapse prevention, and crisis planning are individualized and can change as the longitudinal picture becomes clearer. NICE discusses collaborative planning and monitoring.
Severe mania, psychosis, suicidal thoughts with risk of acting on them, inability to care for basic needs, or dangerous impairment of judgment require timely clinical or emergency assessment. Emergency services should be contacted when immediate safety is at risk. These situations are evaluated on their present severity rather than through any historical label. NICE's urgent referral and risk-management recommendations describe the clinical principles.
Frequently asked questions
Who first described bipolar disorder?
There is no single uncontroversial first description of the modern disorder. Aretaeus of Cappadocia is an important ancient precursor because of his discussion of the connection between mania and melancholia. Falret and Baillarger developed major nineteenth-century models of recurring manic and depressive states, and later clinicians defined more operational modern categories. Historical synthesis.
Was bipolar disorder known in ancient Greece?
Ancient physicians described mania, melancholia, and sometimes relationships between them. They did not have today's diagnostic criteria, so those descriptions cannot be equated directly with a retrospective diagnosis of bipolar I or bipolar II disorder. Historical review of ancient texts.
When was bipolar disorder recognized as a separate condition?
The nineteenth-century work of Falret and Baillarger gave the alternating and recurrent clinical picture a recognizable form. The distinction between bipolar and unipolar affective illness was strengthened by mid-twentieth-century research and later incorporated into standardized diagnostic systems. Journal of Affective Disorders history.
When did manic depression become bipolar disorder?
Terminology changed over decades rather than on one universal date. Manic-depressive illness remained common while bipolar and related disorders became established in clinical research and successive manuals. The older term is still recognized by the NIMH as historical usage.
What did Emil Kraepelin contribute?
Kraepelin emphasized long-term course and outcomes and proposed a broad category of manic-depressive insanity. His category was wider than current bipolar diagnoses and included forms of recurrent depression. Mason and colleagues examine the diagnostic legacy.
How did DSM-5 change the diagnosis of bipolar disorder?
DSM-5 created a distinct chapter for bipolar and related disorders, emphasized increased activity or energy in manic and hypomanic episodes, and revised mixed-features classification. DSM-5-TR, published in 2022, updated diagnostic text and selected criteria. Diagnostic revision review; American Psychiatric Association.
Do modern diagnoses imply all earlier physicians were wrong?
Historical clinical observations can be insightful without mapping precisely onto present-day diagnostic categories. Later classifications use more explicit methods and evidence, and these frameworks can continue to improve. Comparing them fairly requires attention to what each author could observe and how each term was defined.
Can someone diagnose bipolar disorder by studying these historical descriptions?
No. Diagnosis requires a qualified clinical assessment of the person's current and past episodes, functional change, timing, other illnesses, medication or substance effects, and possible alternative explanations. NICE clinical assessment guidance.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. Bipolar disorders: Clinical overview. https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/bipolar-disorders
American Psychiatric Association. What is the DSM? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-the-dsm
Angst, J., & Marneros, A. (2001). Bipolarity from ancient to modern times: Conception, birth and rebirth. Journal of Affective Disorders, 67(1–3), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(01)00429-3
Godderis, J. (1994). Aretaios and the relationship between melancholy and mania: Historical reassessment. Verhandelingen – Koninklijke Academie voor Geneeskunde van België, 56(6), 503–533. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7892747/
History of bipolar disorder: A consideration on ancient Western literature. (2010). Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi, 112(12), 1253–1260. Japanese-language historical article. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21381300/
Keramatian, K., Chithra, N. K., & Yatham, L. N. (2023). The CANMAT and ISBD guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder: Summary and a 2023 update of evidence. Focus, 21(4), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20230009
López-Muñoz, F., Shen, W. W., D’Ocon, P., Romero, A., & Álamo, C. (2018). A history of the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 19(7), 2143. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19072143
Mason, B. L., Brown, E. S., & Croarkin, P. E. (2016). Historical underpinnings of bipolar disorder diagnostic criteria. Behavioral Sciences, 6(3), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs6030014
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Bipolar disorder: Assessment and management (CG185). Current recommendations. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg185/chapter/Recommendations
National Institute of Mental Health. Bipolar disorder. Clinical overview. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder
Pichot, P. (1995). The birth of the bipolar disorder. European Psychiatry, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0767-399X(96)80069-1
Severus, E., & Bauer, M. (2013). Diagnosing bipolar disorders in DSM-5. International Journal of Bipolar Disorders, 1, 14. Editorial. https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-7511-1-14
Shorter, E. (2009). The history of lithium therapy. Bipolar Disorders, 11(Suppl. 2), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5618.2009.00706.x
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. DSM-IV to DSM-5 changes in hypomania criteria. Official comparative table. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t9/
Tandon, R. (2015). Bipolar and depressive disorders in DSM-5: Clinical implications of revisions from DSM-IV. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37(1), 1–4. Editorial. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.150796
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs & U.S. Department of Defense. (2023). VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for the management of bipolar disorder. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/HEALTHQUALITY/guidelines/mh/bd/index.asp
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263/