Assessment of social cognition in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Impairment in social cognition may contribute to deficits in social functioning in patients with bipolar disorder (BD). In this study, a complex social cognition task was administered during a neuroimaging session. The behavioral and neural correlates of social cogniton in patients with BD were compared to healthy comparison (HC) subjects. Methods: The task was administered to 25 HC and 25 patients with depression scores ranging from euthymic to depressed at the time of assessment. The task required participants to evaluate situations that were “enhancing” or “threatening” to self-esteem, directed at both oneself, and at other people. For instance, self-esteem enhancing scenarios involved vignettes of activities such as receiving praise during a sports game, while a threatening scenario involved, for example, receiving criticism at a party. Participants were then required to evaluate characters in the scenarios on the basis of positive (“kind”) or negative (“mean”) descriptors. Evaluations were classified from extremely negative to extremely positive. The frequencies of behavioral responses were analyzed using chi-square tests and fMRI data were analyzed using Statistical Parametric Mapping software. Results: Patients differed significantly from HCs in their evaluation of threatening scenarios, directed at both oneself and at other people (p<0.001). Patients had a lower proportion of responses in the neutral category, and more responses in the positive and negative categories, relative to HCs. Neuroimaging results reveal differential patterns of prefrontal-cortical and limbic-subcortical activation in BDs throughout the task [p<0.05 (unc.)]. Conclusions: Findings will contribute to understanding difficulty in interpersonal functioning in patients with BD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".