MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762783509 · doi:10.1503/jpn.170076

Examining cognition across the bipolar/schizophrenia diagnostic spectrum

2018· article· en· W2762783509 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy Lynham, Leon Hubbard, Katherine E. Tansey, Marian L. Hamshere, Sophie E. Legge, Michael J. Owen, Ian Jones, James Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMQ: Transforming Mental Health
KeywordsSchizophrenia spectrumBipolar disorderSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)CognitionPsychologySpectrum (functional analysis)Cognitive psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychosisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cognitive impairments are well-established features of schizophrenia, but there is ongoing debate about the nature and degree of cognitive impairment in patients with schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder. We hypothesized that there is a spectrum of increasing impairment from bipolar disorder to schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, to schizoaffective disorder depressive type and schizophrenia. Methods: We compared performance on the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery between participants with schizophrenia ( n = 558), schizoaffective disorder depressive type ( n = 112), schizoaffective disorder type ( n = 76), bipolar disorder ( n = 78) and healthy participants ( n = 103) using analysis of covariance with post hoc comparisons. We conducted an ordinal logistic regression to examine whether cognitive impairments followed the hypothesized spectrum from bipolar disorder (least severe) to schizophrenia (most severe). In addition to categorical diagnoses, we addressed the influence of symptom domains, examining the association between cognition and mania, depression and psychosis. Results: Cognitive impairments increased in severity from bipolar disorder to schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, to schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder depressive type. Participants with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder depressive type showed equivalent performance ( d = 0.07, p = 0.90). The results of the ordinal logistic regression were consistent with a spectrum of deficits from bipolar disorder to schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, to schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder depressive type (odds ratio = 1.98, p < 0.001). In analyses of the associations between symptom dimensions and cognition, higher scores on the psychosis dimension were associated with poorer performance (B = 0.015, standard error = 0.002, p < 0.001). Limitations: There were fewer participants with schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder than schizophrenia. Despite this, our analyses were robust to differences in group sizes, and we were able to detect differences between groups. Conclusion: Cognitive impairments represent a symptom dimension that cuts across traditional diagnostic boundaries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207