Cognitive impairment and its relation to predominant polarity, number of episodes and illness duration in patients with euthymic bipolar affective disorder (BAD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Previous optimistic assumptions about the prognosis of BAD based on the control of mood symptoms is now challenged as majority of patients continue to have cognitive deficits during the euthymic phase. Objectives To describe cognitive impairment in euthymic BAD and study the association with clinical characteristics. Aims Identify the prevalence and severity of cognitive impairment (CI); to correlate CI with the first episode, illness duration, number of episodes and predominant polarity. Methods Patients attending the psychiatry clinic of the National Hospital of Sri Lanka diagnosed with BAD in the remission phase were recruited. An interviewer-administered questionnaire and Montreal Cognitive Assessment test was used to ascertain clinical characteristics and cognitive functions respectively. Scores of 18–26 described as mild, 10–17 moderate and < 10 as severe cognitive impairment. Results Total sample size was 58. Mean age = 48.84 (SD12.5). Fifty-five percent were females. Mean duration of illness was 179.7 months (SD128.5). A mean of 6 episodes were experienced during the course of illness (min = 1, max = 18); 58.6% had depression, 37.9% had manic and 3.4% had mixed as their first episode. The predominant polarity was depressive in 65.5%. No cognitive impairment – 8.6%, mild – 63.8%, moderate – 27.6% and none with severe. There was a significant association between the presence of cognitive impairment and the predominant polarity being depressive ( r = 10.886, df = 4, P = 0.028). No significant association was found between illness duration, number of episodes or the type of first episode. Conclusions Patients with a predominant depressive polarity are more likely to experience cognitive impairment. Cognitive impairment had no association with illness duration, type of episode or number of episodes. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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".