MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive effects of atypical antipsychotics: focus on bipolar spectrum disorders

2003· review· en· W2063058082 on OpenAlexaff
Glenda MacQueen, Trevor M. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderCognitionSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryPsychologyLithium (medication)Bipolar I disorderTreatment of bipolar disorderClinical psychologyMedicineMania

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies examining cognitive dysfunction in bipolar disorder have documented neuropsychologic impairment in some patients. Recollection memory, attention, and visual information processing may be particularly impaired in patients with bipolar illness. Cognitive impairment appears to worsen with illness progression, and may have a significant impact on function. Pharmacotherapy to treat bipolar disorder including lithium, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and atypical antipsychotics may have varying effects on cognitive functioning. Treatment with atypical antipsychotics has been associated with improvement in various cognitive measures in patients with schizophrenia, and the little data available in patients with bipolar disorder suggest the potential for similar benefits. Studies to determine if current treatments for bipolar disorder can prevent, delay, or even improve cognitive dysfunction are needed.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations107
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207