F84. ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE, VERBAL WORKING MEMORY AND PROCESSING SPEED IN PARENTS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA OR BIPOLAR DISORDER AND THEIR 7-YEAR OLD OFFSPRING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurocognitive phenotypes may contribute to understanding the pathway leading from genes to psychopathology. We aimed to investigate associations of intelligence, processing speed and verbal working memory between parents and offspring in families with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and controls. Data are from The Danish High Risk and Resilience Study – VIA7, a population-based nationwide cohort identified through Danish Registries. Participants are 522 children aged 7 with no, one, or two parents with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and biological parents. Control children were matched to children from the schizophrenia group (age, gender, and municipality). Children at familial risk of bipolar disorder were comparison group. Child assessors were blinded to risk status. Main Outcomes were intelligence measured with Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test (RIST), verbal working memory assessed with letter number sequencing (LNS) and processing speed assessed with Coding (WISC-IV/WAIS-IV). We examined 434 index parents (151 schizophrenia, 100 bipolar disorder and 183 controls, mean (SD) age 39.7 (5.7), 264 (61%) females), 443 co-parents (mean (SD) age 40.1 (5.4), 210 (47%) females) and 489 children (mean (SD) age 7.8 (0.2), 231 (47%) females). Children′s intelligence was associated with index parents’ intelligence (B = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28;0.52, p < 0.001) and co-parents’ intelligence (B = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03;0.28, p = 0.012). Children’s processing speed was associated with index parents’ processing speed (B = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02;0.12, p = 0.007), co-parents’ processing speed (B = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.04;0.15, p < 0.001), group (schizophrenia: B = -1.92, 95% CI: -3.63;-0.21, p = 0.028) and gender of child (male: B = -4.55, 95% CI: -4.98; -2.12, p < 0.001). Children’s working memory was associated with index parents’ LNS score (B=0.25, 95% CI: 0.13;0.37, p < 0.001), co-parents’ working memory (B = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.09;0.37, p = 0.001), group (schizophrenia: B = -1.02, 95% CI: -0.89;-0.16, p = 0.020) and gender of child (male: B = -0.85, 95% CI: -1.60;-0.11, p = 0.025). Findings showed associations of neurocognitive phenotypes between parents and offspring. These associations do not differ markedly between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and controls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".