No evidence of attentional deficits in stabilized bipolar youth relative to unipolar and control comparators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the presence or absence of attentional problems and prior diagnosis of ADHD in a cohort of stabilized bipolar I relative to unipolar and normal control. METHOD: Indices of attention were obtained from bipolar (n = 44), unipolar (n = 30), and normal controls (n = 45). Measures included: Freedom from Distractibility (FD) Composite Index of the WISC III, Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), and a checklist measure of subjective cognitive/attentional problems (SIP-AV). RESULTS: Bipolar (6.8%), unipolar (10%), and no control youth report a prior diagnosis of ADHD. No significant group or sex differences were observed on FD Composite Index, various CPT indices, or the WCST. Despite normative attentional function by objective testing, subjectively experienced cognitive problems in the clinical probands were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort of well-functioning bipolar youth diagnosed on average 3-4 years prior to assessment do not possess attentional deficits based on a variety of objective tests compared to unipolar or control youth, but self report subjective difficulties in attentional/problem solving ability. In contrast to other authors, we do not find that bipolar youth have high rates of comorbid ADHD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".