The relationship between executive functions and fluid intelligence in euthymic Bipolar Disorder patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinct cognitive deficits have been described in Bipolar disorder (BD), including executive impairments, commonly attributed to frontal dysfunction. However, recent attention has been paid to the heterogeneity of cognitive functioning in this population, suggesting that the executive deficits observed in BD might be due to a loss in fluid intelligence (g). Following our previous line of investigation in multiple neurological and psychiatric conditions we aimed at determining the role of g in frontal deficits in BD. Euthymic BD patients (n = 51) and healthy controls (n = 37) were assessed with Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Verbal Fluency, Trail Making Test B (TMTB), a multitasking test, and a theory of mind test. A general cognitive battery was used to derive a measure of g. As in other neuropsychiatric conditions, significant patient-control differences in WCST, Verbal Fluency and TMTB were removed when g was introduced as a covariate. Deficits remained significant in the multitasking test. We suggest that neuropsychological assessment in BD should include tests of general intelligence, together with one or more specific tasks that allow for the assessment of residual frontal deficits, putatively associated with anterior frontal functioning.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".