Dimensional psychopathology in offspring of parents with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the dimensional psychopathology in offspring of parents with bipolar disorder (BP) with offspring of community control parents as assessed by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). METHODS: Offspring of parents with BP, who were healthy or had non-BP disorders (any psychiatric disorder other than BP; n = 319) or who had bipolar spectrum disorders (n = 35), and offspring of community controls (n = 235) ages 6-18 years were compared using the CBCL, the CBCL-Dysregulation Profile (CBCL-DP), and a sum of the CBCL items associated with mood lability. The results were adjusted for multiple comparisons and for any significant between-group demographic and clinical differences in both biological parents and offspring. RESULTS: With few exceptions, several CBCL (e.g., Total, Internalizing, and Aggression Problems), CBCL-DP, and mood lability scores in non-BP offspring of parents with BP were significantly higher than in offspring of control parents. In addition, both groups of offspring showed significantly lower scores in most scales when compared with offspring of parents with BP who had already developed BP. Similar results were obtained when analyzing the rates of subjects with CBCL T-scores that were two standard deviations or higher above the mean. CONCLUSIONS: Even before developing BP, offspring of parents with BP had more severe and higher rates of dimensional psychopathology than offspring of control parents. Prospective follow-up studies in non-BP offspring of parents with BP are warranted to evaluate whether these dimensional profiles are prodromal manifestations of mood or other disorders, and can predict those who are at higher risk to develop BP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".