Prediction of functional outcome in bipolar disorder: Effects of cognitive remediation and cognitive psychoeducational group therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In bipolar patients cognitive deficits are an important feature. Persisting neurocognitive impairment is associated with low psychosocial functioning. Objectives The aim of this presentation is to discuss potential cognitive, clinical and treatment-dependent predictors for functional impairment in bipolar patients. Methods In a first study (1) at the Medical University of Vienna 43 remitted bipolar patients and 40 healthy controls were assessed testing specifically attention, memory, verbal fluency and executive functions. In a randomized controlled trial, patients were assigned to two treatment conditions as add-on to state-of-the-art pharmacotherapy: cognitive psychoeducational group therapy over 14 weeks or treatment-as-usual. At 12 months after therapy, functional impairment and severity of symptoms were assessed. In a second, ongoing study, in-patients from a defined catchment area in Vienna (12th, 13th and 23rd district) were assessed via SCIP (Purdon S. 2005. The screen for cognitive impairment in psychiatry: Administration and psychometric properties. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: PNL Inc.). The SCIP was performed before and after cognitive remediation. The effects of treatment on functioning were measured with the clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). Results Compared to controls, bipolar patients showed lower performance in executive function, sustained attention, verbal learning and verbal fluency. Cognitive psychoeducational group therapy and attention predicted occupational functioning. In the second study, SCIP and CGI values showed improvement after treatment. Conclusions Our data support the idea that cognition affects outcome. Bipolar patients benefit from cognitive psychoeducational group therapy in the domain of occupational life. (1) Sachs G et al. Front. Psychiatry, 23 November 2020 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.530026 Disclosure No significant relationships.
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".