Response inhibition and interference control in patients with bipolar I disorder and first‐degree relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to assess both response inhibition (RI) and interference control (IC) in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder (BD-Ps) as well as asymptomatic first-degree relatives (BD-Rs) and healthy controls (HCs) in order to evaluate trait-as opposed to illness-associated features of these components. METHODS: BD-Ps (n = 35) who had been in the euthymic state for at least six months, BD-Rs (n = 30), and HCs (n = 33) completed a Stop-Signal Task (SST) and Stroop Task to assess RI and IC, respectively. Groups were compared on the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT), stop-signal delay (SSD), mean reaction time on go trials (go-RT), Stroop interference score (S-interference), and number of errors on the color-word-naming trial (S-error). Associations between the patient's clinical features and RI and IC, between the patient's treatment and RI and IC, and between RI and IC in each group were investigated. RESULTS: BD-Ps and BD-Rs had significantly shorter go-RT and SSD, and longer SSRT compared to HCs, with these scores being similar between the BD-Ps and BD-Rs. Also, both BD-Ps and BD-Rs made significantly more S-errors than HCs, whereas, the S-interference score was not significantly different between groups. There were no significant correlations between Stroop Task and SST scores within each group, nor between clinical features or treatment variables and RI and IC in BD-Ps. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, impairment in RI and IC (only on S-error score) was present in both patients and relatives. The persistence of these deficits in the absence of mood symptoms suggests that these features may represent candidate endophenotypes for bipolar disorder.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".