Differential deficit in executive control in euthymic bipolar disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with remitted bipolar disorder (BD) have persistent cognitive deficits, but the nature and specificity of this deficit remain unclear. The authors evaluated the executive hypothesis of BD by determining whether (a) patients' executive deficits qualify as differential deficits, that is, that these significantly exceed deficits in other cognitive domains; (b) deficits in particular executive functions are evident, and (c) executive difficulties mediate declarative memory deficits in BD. The cognitive performance of 63 prospectively verified euthymic bipolar patients was compared with controls, using J. Baron and R. Trieman's (1980) method of testing for differences in nonindependent correlations. There were no differential deficits within the executive domain. Patients' generic executive performance was differentially impaired relative to primary verbal memory and retention in declarative memory, but not relative to their declarative recall, recognition, or their psychomotor performance. However, patients' executive deficit was not an artifact of their poor psychomotor performance. Executive performance accounted for all but a trivial portion of the between-group variance in declarative memory. Persistent cognitive difficulties in euthymic bipolar disorder (EBD) are thus usefully characterized as a generic dysexecutive syndrome.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".