Differences in sleep disturbances among offspring of parents with and without bipolar disorder: association with conversion to bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Disruptions in sleep and dysregulation in circadian functioning may represent core abnormalities in the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder (BP). However, it is not clear whether these dysfunctions are state or trait markers of BP. This report compared sleep and circadian phenotypes among three groups: offspring of parents with BP diagnosed with BP at intake (BP/OB; n = 47), offspring of parents with BP without BP at intake (non-BP/OB; n = 386), and offspring of matched control parents who did not have BP (controls; n = 301). We also examined the association of baseline sleep parameters with subsequent development of BP among the non-BP/OB group. METHODS: Pittsburgh Bipolar Offspring Study youth (ages 6-18 years) and their parents completed assessments every two years pertaining to the child's sleep and circadian phenotypes and current psychopathology. Mixed-effects models examined differences in baseline sleep and circadian variables among the three groups. RESULTS: BP/OB offspring who were in a mood episode differed significantly on sleep parameters from the non-BP/OB and the offspring of controls, such as having inadequate sleep. Mixed logistic regression procedures showed that baseline sleep and circadian variables, such as frequent waking during the night, significantly predicted the development of BP among non-BP/OB over longitudinal follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While lifetime diagnostic status accounted for differences among the groups in sleep and circadian disturbances, psychopathology explained the differences even further. Additionally, sleep disturbance may be a prognostic indicator of the development of BP in high-risk youth. Future studies are required to further disentangle whether sleep and circadian disruption are state or trait features of BP.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".