Neurocognitive Functioning in Patients With Bipolar I Disorder Recently Recovered From a First Manic Episode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article AbstractObjective: Although cognitive impairment is an important clinical feature of bipolar disorder, it is unknown whether deficits are present at illness onset. The purpose of this study was to determine whether neuropsychological impairments are present in clinically stable patients with bipolar disorder shortly after resolution of their first manic episode. Method: Within a large university medical center, 45 recently diagnosed (DSM-IV-TR) patients with bipolar disorder type I were evaluated after resolution of their first manic episode, along with 25 matched healthy comparison subjects. Participants were administered a neuropsychological battery evaluating 5 broad cognitive domains, including verbal/premorbid intellectual functioning, learning/memory, spatial/nonverbal reasoning, attention/processing speed, and executive function. Data were collected from July 2004 to August 2007. Results: Relative to controls, patients showed broad impairments in learning/memory, spatial/nonverbal reasoning, executive function, and some aspects of attention (all P†‰<†‰.01). Specifically, deficits were evident on tests assessing sustained attention, attentional and mental set shifting, spatial working memory, nonverbal reasoning, and verbal learning and recall (all P†‰<†‰.01). Cognitive impairments in patients could not be fully attributed to substance abuse, medication status, or residual mood symptoms. Conclusions: Results indicate that core neuropsychological deficits in sustained attention, learning and recall, spatial/nonverbal reasoning, and several aspects of executive function are present at illness onset. Cognitive deficits in bipolar disorder are, thus, most likely not exclusively attributable to progressive decline associated with increased illness burden, cumulative treatment effects, or chronicity of illness. These findings may provide etiologic clues into the illness and identify clinical targets for early treatment.J Clin PsychiatrySubmitted: December 29, 2008; accepted April 21, 2009. Online ahead of print: March 23, 2010 (doi:10.4088/JCP.08m04997yel). Corresponding author: Lakshmi N. Yatham, MBBS, FRCPC, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Room 2C7-2255, Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 2A1, Canada (yatham@exchange.ubc.ca).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".