Backward masking task performance in stable, euthymic out-patients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that visual backward masking (VBM) impairment is present in patients with bipolar disorder, but the clinical features, such as current symptoms, treatment status and past burden of illness that may contribute to the impairment have not been well described. This study examined well-characterized euthymic patients on two VBM tasks to ascertain the extent of VBM impairment in this group and the clinical correlates of this impairment. METHOD: Twenty-eight euthymic patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar disorder were matched by age, sex and IQ with 28 non-psychiatric control subjects. Both groups completed two VBM tasks; one required subjects to locate the target stimulus, one required identification of the target stimulus. Reaction times and error rates across a range of target-mask inter-stimulus intervals were assessed. RESULTS: Patients were significantly slower and had more errors on both VBM tasks. There was a significant relation between reaction times on the identification task and past burden of illness, particularly past number of depressions. There was no discernible impact of treatment status on reaction time or performance, including no difference in lithium-treated versus not treated subjects. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with previous reports of neuropsychological deficits in euthymic bipolar disorder patients. The potential benefit to employing tasks such as VBM is that it may provide a method for relating clinical variables such as illness burden with known neural pathways in order to elucidate better the pathophysiology leading to impaired cognitive performance in patients with 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".