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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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