MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765946039 · doi:10.3390/brainsci7110143

Intellectual Functioning in Offspring of Parents with Bipolar Disorder: A Review of the Literature

2017· review· en· W2765946039 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie Klimes‐Dougan, Jake Jeong, Kevin P. Kennedy, Timothy A. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderPsychologyIntellectual disabilityVulnerability (computing)OffspringIntelligence quotientClinical psychologyBorderline intellectual functioningDevelopmental psychologyPsychological resiliencePsychiatryCognitionMoodPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impaired intellectual functioning is an important risk factor for the emergence of severe mental illness. Unlike many other forms of mental disorder however, the association between bipolar disorder and intellectual deficits is unclear. In this narrative review, we examine the current evidence on intellectual functioning in children and adolescents at risk for developing bipolar disorder. The results are based on 18 independent, peer-reviewed publications from 1980 to 2017 that met criteria for this study. The findings yielded no consistent evidence of lower or higher intellectual quotient (IQ) in offspring of parents diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Some tentative evidence was found for lower performance IQ in offspring of bipolar parents as compared to controls. It is recommended that future research examine variability in intellectual functioning and potential moderators. These findings demonstrate the need to examine how intellectual functioning unfolds across development given the potential role of IQ as a marker of vulnerability or resilience in youth at high risk for affective disorders.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207