Using network analysis to explore cognitive domains in patients with unipolar versus bipolar depression: a prospective naturalistic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite growing evidence in the field of cognitive function in mood disorders, the neurocognitive profiles of patients with unipolar and bipolar depression still need further characterization. In this study, we applied network analysis, hypothesizing this approach could highlight differences between major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) from a cognitive perspective. METHODS: The cognitive performance of 109 patients (72 unipolar and 37 bipolar depressed outpatients) was assessed through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and a series of clinical variables were collected. Differences in cognitive performance between MDD and BD patients were tested using non-parametric tests. Moreover, a network graph representing MoCA domains as nodes and Spearman's rho correlation coefficients between the domains as edges was constructed for each group. RESULTS: The presence of mild cognitive impairment was observed in both MDD and BD patients during depression. No statistical significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of overall cognitive performance and across single domains. Nonetheless, network analytic metrics demonstrated different roles of memory and executive dysfunction in MDD versus BD patients: in particular, MDD network was more densely interconnected than BD network, and memory was the node with the highest betweenness and closeness centrality in MDD, while executive function was more central in BD. CONCLUSIONS: From a network analytic perspective, memory impairment displays a central role in the cognitive impairment of patients with unipolar depression, whereas executive dysfunction appears to be more central in bipolar depression. Further research is warranted to confirm our results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".