Prevalence of white matter hyperintensities is not elevated in a large sample of adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The increased prevalence rate of white matter hyperintensities is one of the most consistently reported brain abnormalities in adults with bipolar disorder. However, findings in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder are less consistent. Prior studies have been constrained by small sample sizes and/or poor age- and sex-matching of healthy controls. We examined this topic in the largest sample of adolescents with bipolar disorder to date. METHODS: T2-weighted 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging data were acquired for 83 adolescents with bipolar disorder diagnosed via the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and the Schizophrenia, Present and Lifetime version semi-structured interview and 64 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. All acquired scans were examined by neuroradiologists and the presence or absence of white matter hyperintensities was determined for each participant. RESULTS: The prevalence of white matter hyperintensities did not differ between adolescents with bipolar disorder (13.3%) and controls (21.9%; χ2 = 1.90; p = 0.168). CONCLUSION: In contrast to the study hypothesis, the prevalence of white matter hyperintensities was not higher in adolescents with bipolar disorder than controls. The large sample size and good matching for age and sex bolster the reliability of this negative finding. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the prevalence, incidence, and predictors of white matter hyperintensities in early-onset bipolar disorder prospectively.
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".