Cognitive and functional deficits in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia as a function of the presence and history of psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder overlap considerably. Schizophrenia is a primary psychotic disorder, whereas approximately half of people with bipolar disorder will experience psychosis. In this study, we examined the extent to which cognitive and functional impairments are related to the presence and history of psychosis across the two disorders. METHOD: A total of 633 participants with bipolar disorder I, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder were recruited for a study on the genetics of cognition and functioning in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Participants were classified into five groups: bipolar disorder with current psychosis (N = 30), bipolar disorder with a history of psychosis (N = 162), bipolar disorder with no history of psychosis (N = 92), schizophrenia with current psychosis (N = 245), and schizophrenia with past psychosis (N = 104). RESULTS: Cognitive profiles of all groups were similar in pattern; however, both current psychosis (P < .02) and a diagnosis of schizophrenia (P < .03) were associated with greater impairment. Schizophrenia with current psychosis was also associated with a superimposed severe impairment in processing speed. Both psychosis (P < .03) and schizophrenia diagnosis (P < .01) were associated with poorer functional competence. Individuals with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia experienced similar impairments in real-world functioning if they were experiencing current psychosis (P = .32). CONCLUSION: The presence of active psychosis is an important cross-diagnostic factor in cognition and functioning in both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Characterization and treatment of cognition and functional deficits in bipolar disorder should consider the effects of both current and history of psychosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".