Cognitive Impairment in Bipolar: Neurodevelopmental or Neuroprogressive?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Bipolar Disorders (BD) are common and complex diseases. Recent findings have provided evidence that impairments in cognition are evident in the various sub-groups of Bipolar Disorder and persist after resolution of acute episodes. Method An opinion paper based on a narrative review of the field. Results Quantifiable cognitive deficits are clearly found in Bipolar 1 and Bipolar 2 Disorders. These persist after recovery from acute episodes. The aetiopathogenesis of these phenomena is likely to be multifactorial. It seems clear that these cognitive impairments are not in general neurodevelopmental and for most are related to repeated episodes of illness [1]. However, the issues of subgroups with differential profiles of impairment and the trajectory of cognitive change remain to be fully established. The effects of putative treatments (e.g., pharmacological, neurostimulation, cognitive remediation) are at an early stage of evaluation. Conclusions Future efforts should focus on further integrating the current and emerging research findings into a coherent model, which generates testable hypotheses and allows treatment effects to be tested. Disclosure of interest Employed by King's College London Honorary Consultant SLaM (NHS UK) Paid lectures and advisory boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders No share holdings in pharmaceutical companies Lead Investigator for Embolden Study (AZ), BCI Neuroplasticity study and Aripiprazole Mania Study Investigator initiated studies from AZ, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Wyeth Grant funding (past and present): NIMH (USA) CIHR (Canada) NARSAD (USA) Stanley Medical Research Institute (USA) MRC (UK) Wellcome Trust (UK) Royal College of Physicians (Edin) BMA (UK) UBC-VGH Foundation (Canada) WEDC (Canada) CCS Depression Research Fund (Canada) MSFHR (Canada) NIHR (UK).
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 | 0.001 |
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".