Metacognitive knowledge and experience in recently diagnosed patients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Metacognition, which refers to an individual's ability to assess their own cognitive ability or performance, is poorly understood in bipolar disorder. This study was conducted to evaluate two aspects of metacognitive ability in recently diagnosed patients with bipolar disorder: (a) metacognitive knowledge, pertaining to awareness of one's own general cognitive functioning; and (b) metacognitive experience, referring to awareness of one's cognitive performance on a specific, online cognitive task. METHOD: Participants consisted of 50 clinically euthymic patients recently diagnosed with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) bipolar I disorder who were within three months of resolution of their first manic episode, and a comparison group of 38 demographically similar healthy volunteers. To assess metacognitive knowledge, participants provided a general rating of their estimated cognitive ability prior to completing a neuropsychological battery, and self-ratings were compared to actual ability based on a composite score of overall cognitive functioning. To assess metacognitive experience, subjects provided a postdiction rating of their perceived memory performance after completing a list learning verbal memory test, and self-ratings were compared to actual memory performance. Measures of both relative and absolute accuracy of ratings were obtained. RESULTS: Results indicated that patients showed diminished accuracy in rating their general cognitive ability, implying deficits in metacognitive knowledge. In contrast, patients were accurate in rating their online memory performance, suggesting intact metacognitive experience. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that in patients with bipolar disorder, intact task-specific cognitive self-appraisals may fail to generalize to or to modify inaccurate global cognitive self-appraisals. Further research using more comprehensive metacognitive tasks is warranted in 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".