Brain age in bipolar disorders: Effects of lithium treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Bipolar disorders increase the risk of dementia and show biological and brain alterations, which resemble accelerated aging. Lithium may counter some of these processes and lower the risk of dementia. However, until now no study has specifically investigated the effects of Li on brain age. Methods: We acquired structural magnetic resonance imaging scans from 84 participants with bipolar disorders (41 with and 43 without Li treatment) and 45 controls. We used a machine learning model trained on an independent sample of 504 controls to estimate the individual brain ages of study participants, and calculated BrainAGE by subtracting chronological from the estimated brain age. Results: BrainAGE was significantly greater in non-Li relative to Li or control participants, F(2, 125) = 10.22, p < 0.001, with no differences between the Li treated and control groups. The estimated brain age was significantly higher than the chronological age in the non-Li (4.28 ± 6.33 years, matched t(42) = 4.43, p < 0.001), but not the Li-treated group (0.48 ± 7.60 years, not significant). Even Li-treated participants with partial prophylactic treatment response showed lower BrainAGE than the non-Li group, F(1, 64) = 4.80, p = 0.03. Conclusions: Bipolar disorders were associated with greater, whereas Li treatment with lower discrepancy between brain and chronological age. These findings support the neuroprotective effects of Li, which were sufficiently pronounced to affect a complex, multivariate measure of brain structure. The association between Li treatment and BrainAGE was independent of long-term thymoprophylactic response and thus may generalize beyond bipolar disorders, to neurodegenerative disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".