MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990824455 · doi:10.1080/13546805.2012.702505

Psychological factors that may confer risk for bipolar disorder

2012· review· en· W1990824455 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret C. McKinnon, Andrée M. Cusi, Glenda MacQueen

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Neuropsychiatry · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of CalgaryBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDysfunctional familyMoodCognitionBipolar disorderEndophenotypeNeuroticismEmpathyClinical psychologyTemperamentPersonalityDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several psychological domains may be dysfunctional in people with bipolar disorder (BD). When dysfunction occurs prior to onset of mood symptoms, it may signify risk for onset of the full syndrome of illness. Among these domains, cognitive dysfunction has received considerable attention as a possible endophenotype for BD, with some suggestion that changes in cognitive function may antedate onset of mood symptoms in individuals at risk for BD. Domains of social cognition, including emotion comprehension, theory of mind, and empathy, along with autobiographical memory, represent understudied aspects of psychological function that may be dysfunctional in people with BD. Temperament and personality factors, such as ruminative tendencies and neuroticism, may also leave some people vulnerable to mood instability. This review summarises the evidence for dysfunction in each of these domains for people with BD and examines whether there is any evidence that this dysfunction antedates the onset of mood symptoms or confers risk for illness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive NeuropsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207