Relationship between cognitive functioning and 6-month clinical and functional outcome in patients with first manic episode bipolar I disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although cognitive deficits in bipolar disorder have been associated with diminished functional outcome, this relationship has been studied primarily through cross-sectional designs, and has not been studied in patients early in the course of illness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of cognitive functioning on longitudinal 6-month functional and clinical outcome in recently diagnosed clinically stable patients with bipolar disorder. METHOD: A total of 53 recently diagnosed patients with DSM-IV bipolar disorder type I were assessed within 3 months of their first manic episode using a neuropsychological battery measuring verbal/pre-morbid intellectual functioning, learning/memory, spatial/non-verbal reasoning, attention/processing speed and executive function. Functional outcome was assessed at baseline and 6 months using the Multidimensional Scale of Independent Functioning (MSIF) and DSM-IV Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). Clinical outcome was assessed with symptom ratings and by monitoring onset of new mood episodes. RESULTS: Memory, particularly verbal learning/memory, was robustly associated with 6-month functional outcome on the MSIF, even after partialling out the influence of mood symptoms and substance abuse co-morbidity. Depression ratings at 6 months, but not cognitive variables, were associated with 6-month GAF scores. Cognitive functioning was not associated with 6-month clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Memory was associated with 6-month longitudinal functional but not clinical outcome in recently diagnosed patients with bipolar disorder. These data further support the distinction between clinical and functional outcome, and emphasize the need for identification of, and development of treatments for, cognitive impairments early in the course of 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".