Management of cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment is common in bipolar disorder and is emerging as a therapeutic target to enhance quality of life and function. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and Embase databases for blinded or open-label randomized controlled trials evaluating the pro-cognitive effects of pharmacological, neurostimulation, or psychological interventions for bipolar disorder. Twenty-two trials were identified, evaluating a total of 16 different pro-cognitive interventions. The methodological quality of the identified trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Currently, no intervention (i.e., pharmacologic, neurostimulation, cognitive remediation) has demonstrated robust and independent pro-cognitive effects in adults with bipolar disorder. Findings are preliminary and methodological limitations limit the interpretation of results. Methodological considerations including, but not limited to, the enrichment with populations with pre-treatment cognitive impairment, as well as the inclusion of individuals who are in remission are encouraged. Future trials may also consider targeting interventions to specific cognitive subgroups and the use of biomarkers of cognitive function.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".