Cognition in older adults with bipolar disorder versus major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gildengers AG, Butters MA, Chisholm D, Anderson SJ, Begley A, Holm M, Rogers JC, Reynolds CF III, Mulsant BH. Cognition in older adults with bipolar disorder versus major depressive disorder. Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 198–205. © 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Objectives: Bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) are associated with cognitive dysfunction in older age during both acute mood episodes and remitted states. The purpose of this study was to investigate for the first time the similarities and differences in the cognitive function of older adults with BD and MDD that may shed light on mechanisms of cognitive decline. Methods: A total of 165 subjects with BD (n = 43) or MDD (n = 122), ages ≥ 65 years [mean (SD) 74.2 (6.2)], were assessed when euthymic, using comprehensive measures of cognitive function and cognitive–instrumental activities of daily living (C‐IADLs). Test results were standardized using a group of mentally healthy individuals (n = 92) of comparable age and education level. Results: Subjects with BD and MDD were impaired across all cognitive domains compared with controls, most prominently in Information Processing Speed/Executive Function. Despite the protective effects of having higher education and lower vascular burden, BD subjects were more impaired across all cognitive domains compared with MDD subjects. Subjects with BD and MDD did not differ significantly in C‐IADLs. Conclusion: In older age, patients with BD have worse overall cognitive function than patients with MDD. Our findings suggest that factors intrinsic to BD appear to be related to cognitive deterioration and support the understanding that BD is associated with cognitive decline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".