Staging, Neurocognition and Social Functioning in Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with significant neurocognitive and functional impairment, which may progress across stages. The ´latent stage´ of BD remains understudied. This cross-sectional study assessed staging, neurocognition and social functioning among BD patients and their healthy siblings. Methods: Four groups were included: euthymic type I BD patients in the early (n=25) and late (n=23) stages, their healthy siblings (latent stage; n=23) and healthy controls (n=21). All 92 subjects underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological battery of processing speed, verbal learning/memory, visual memory, working memory, verbal fluency, executive cognition and motor speed. Social functioning was assessed using the FAST scale. Results: Siblings’ social functioning was identical to that of controls, and significantly better than both early- (p<0.005) and late- (p<0.001) stage patients. Although all patients were strictly euthymic, those at late stages had a significantly worse social functioning than early-stage patients (p<0.001). Compared to controls, increasingly greater neurocognitive dysfunction was observed across stages of BD (F=1.59; p=0.005). Healthy siblings’ performance lied between those of controls and patients, with deficits in tasks of processing speed, executive attention, verbal memory/learning, and visual memory. Both early- and late-stage patients had a more severe and widespread dysfunction than siblings, with no significant differences between them. Conclusions: Genetic vulnerability to BD-I seems to be associated with neurocognitive impairments, whereas social dysfunction would be the result of the clinical phenotype. Staging models of BD should take into account these divergent findings in the latent stage.
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".