MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786177954 · doi:10.1111/bdi.12595

Assessing and addressing cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder: the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Task Force recommendations for clinicians

2018· review· en· W2786177954 on OpenAlexaff
Kamilla Woznica Miskowiak, KE Burdick, Anabel Martínez‐Arán, Caterina del Mar Bonnín, CR Bowie, AF Carvalho, Peter Gallagher, Beny Lafer, Carlos López‐Jaramillo, Tomiki Sumiyoshi, RS McIntyre, Ayal Schaffer, RJ Porter, Scot E. Purdon, IJ Torres, Lakshmi N. Yatham, Allan H. Young, Lars Vedel Kessing, Eduard Vieta

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaBrain and Cognition Discovery FoundationQueen's University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchLundbeckfondenInternational Society for Bipolar Disorders
KeywordsCognitionTask forceBipolar disorderCognitive impairmentTask (project management)PsychologyMedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Cognition is a new treatment target to aid functional recovery and enhance quality of life for patients with bipolar disorder. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Targeting Cognition Task Force aimed to develop consensus-based clinical recommendations on whether, when and how to assess and address cognitive impairment. METHODS: The task force, consisting of 19 international experts from nine countries, discussed the challenges and recommendations in a face-to-face meeting, telephone conference call and email exchanges. Consensus-based recommendations were achieved through these exchanges with no need for formal consensus methods. RESULTS: The identified questions were: (I) Should cognitive screening assessments be routinely conducted in clinical settings? (II) What are the most feasible screening tools? (III) What are the implications if cognitive impairment is detected? (IV) What are the treatment perspectives? Key recommendations are that clinicians: (I) formally screen cognition in partially or fully remitted patients whenever possible, (II) use brief, easy-to-administer tools such as the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry and Cognitive Complaints in Bipolar Disorder Rating Assessment, and (III) evaluate the impact of medication and comorbidity, refer patients for comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation when clinically indicated, and encourage patients to build cognitive reserve. Regarding question (IV), there is limited evidence for current evidence-based treatments but intense research efforts are underway to identify new pharmacological and/or psychological cognition treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This task force paper provides the first consensus-based recommendations for clinicians on whether, when, and how to assess and address cognition, which may aid patients' functional recovery and improve their quality of life.

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)0.131
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1310.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0140.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.390
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations214
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207