Effect of Action‐Based Cognitive Remediation on cognitive impairment in patients with remitted bipolar disorder: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cognitive impairment affects many patients with bipolar disorder (BD), and treatments with replicated pro-cognitive effects are lacking. This study aimed to assess the effect of Action-Based Cognitive Remediation (ABCR) vs control treatment on cognitive impairment in patients with BD. METHODS: Patients with remitted BD with objective cognitive impairment were randomized to 10 weeks of ABCR vs control treatment, and assessed at baseline, after 2 weeks of treatment, at treatment completion and at 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome was a cognitive composite score. Secondary outcomes were executive function and observer-rated functional capacity. Tertiary measures included additional neuropsychological tests, performance-based functional capacity and quality of life. Data were analysed with linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: In total, 64 participants were randomized; given three dropouts before the baseline assessments, data were analysed for 61 participants (ABCR: n = 32, control: n = 29). There was no effect on ABCR vs control on the primary cognitive composite score (P-values ≥.60). At treatment completion, there was a large effect of ABCR vs control on the secondary executive function measure (treatment effect= -0.16, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.05], P ≤ .01, d = 0.65), and on subjective cognitive functioning (treatment effect = -5.38, 95% CI [-8.13, -2.67], P ≤ .001, d = 0.80), which disappeared at follow-up. There was no treatment-effect on functioning, and no association between cognitive and functional change. CONCLUSIONS: There was no effect of ABCR on the cognitive composite score. However, there was an effect on executive function and subjective cognitive functioning suggesting that ABCR may be relevant for patients with executive dysfunction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03295305.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".