MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968314832 · doi:10.1111/bdi.12821

Current understandings of the trajectory and emerging correlates of cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder: An overview of evidence

2019· review· en· W2968314832 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIINational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institute of Mental HealthJohn S. Dunn FoundationMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SLundbeckfonden
KeywordsCognitive impairmentBipolar disorderPsychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive dysfunction affects a significant proportion of people with bipolar disorder (BD), but the cause, trajectory and correlates of such dysfunction remains unclear. Increased understanding of these factors is required to progress treatment development for this symptom dimension. METHODS: This paper provides a critical overview of the literature concerning the trajectories and emerging correlates of cognitive functioning in BD. It is a narrative review in which we provide a qualitative synthesis of current evidence concerning clinical, molecular, neural and lifestyle correlates of cognitive impairment in BD across the lifespan (in premorbid, prodromal, early onset, post-onset, elderly cohorts). RESULTS: There is emerging evidence of empirical links between cognitive impairment and an increased inflammatory state, brain structural abnormalities and reduced neuroprotection in BD. However, evidence regarding the progressive nature of cognitive impairment is mixed, since consensus between different cross-sectional data is lacking and does not align to the outcomes of the limited longitudinal studies available. Increased recognition of cognitive heterogeneity in BD may help to explain some inconsistencies in the extant literature. CONCLUSIONS: Large, longitudinally focussed studies of cognition and its covariation alongside biological and lifestyle factors are required to better define cognitive trajectories in BD, and eventually pave the way for the application of a precision medicine approach for individual patients in clinical practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it