Assessing personal financial management in patients with bipolar disorder and its relation to impulsivity and response inhibition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Impulsivity and risk-taking behaviours are reported in bipolar disorder (BD). We examined whether financial management skills are related to impulsivity in patients with BD. METHODS: We assessed financial management skills using the Executive Personal Finance Scale (EPFS), impulsivity using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) and response inhibition using an emotional go/no-go task in bipolar individuals (N = 21) and healthy controls (HC; N = 23). RESULTS: Patients had fewer financial management skills and higher levels of impulsivity than HC. In patients and controls, increased impulsivity was associated with poorer personal financial management. Patients and HC performed equally on the emotional go/no-go task. Higher BIS scores were associated with faster reaction times in HC. In patients, however, higher BIS scores were associated with slower reaction times, possibly indicating compensatory cognitive strategies to counter increased impulsivity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BD may have reduced abilities to manage personal finances, when compared against healthy participants. Difficulty with personal finance management may arise in part as a result of increased levels of impulsivity. Patients may learn to compensate for increased impulsivity by modulating response times in our experimental situations although whether such compensatory strategies generalize to real-world situations is unknown.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it