MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111840839 · doi:10.1186/s40345-014-0016-7

Prophylactic lithium treatment and cognitive performance in patients with a long history of bipolar illness: no simple answers in complex disease-treatment interplay

2014· article· en· W2111840839 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Pfennig, Martin Alda, Trevor M. Young, Glenda MacQueen, Janusz Rybakowski, Aleksandra Suwalska, Christian Simhandl, Barbara König, Tomáš Hájek, Claire O’Donovan, Dirk Alexander Wittekind, Susanne von Quillfeldt, Jana Ploch, Cathrin Sauer, Michael Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bipolar Disorders · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie UniversityResearch Nova ScotiaNova Scotia Health Research FoundationGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsBipolar illnessLithium (medication)NeurologyPsychopharmacologyDiseaseCognitionPsychotherapistBipolar disorderPsychiatryPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyManiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive impairment in patients with bipolar disorder (BD) is not restricted to symptomatic phases. It is also present in euthymia. There is evidence of differences in the brain's structure between bipolar patients and healthy individuals, as well as changes over time in patients. Lithium constitutes the gold standard in long-term prophylactic treatment. Appropriate therapy that prevents new episodes improves the disease's course and reduces the frequency of harmful outcomes. Interestingly, preclinical data suggest that lithium has a (additional) neuroprotective effect. There is limited data on its related effects in humans and even less on its long-term application. In this multi-center cross-sectional study from the International Group for the Study of Lithium-treated Patients (IGSLi), we compared three groups: bipolar patients without long-term lithium treatment (non-Li group; <3 months cumulative lithium exposure, ≥24 months ago), bipolar patients with long-term lithium treatment (Li group, ongoing treatment ≥24 months), and healthy subjects (controls). Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined; the inclusion criteria for patients were diagnosis of BD types I or II, duration of illness ≥10 years, ≥5 episodes in patient's history and a euthymic mood state. Neurocognitive functioning was assessed using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), and a visual backward masking (VBM) task. A total of 142 subjects were included, 31 in the non-Li and 58 in the Li group, as well as 53 healthy controls. Treated patients with long-standing BD and controls did not differ significantly in overall cognitive functioning and verbal learning, recall, and recognition; regardless of whether lithium had been part of the treatment. Patients, however, demonstrated poorer early visual information processing than healthy controls, with the lithium-treated patients performing worse than those without. Our data suggest that bipolar patients with a long illness history and effective prophylactic treatment do not reveal significantly impaired general cognitive functioning or verbal learning and memory. However, they are worse at processing early visual information. Accompanying volumetric and spectroscopic data suggest cell loss in patients not treated with lithium that may be counterbalanced by long-term lithium treatment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207