Cognition in older adults with bipolar disorder: An ISBD task force systematic review and meta‐analysis based on a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aim to characterize the cognitive performance in euthymic older adults with bipolar disorder (OABD) through a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment to obtain a detailed neuropsychological profile. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE/Pubmed, Cochrane, and PsycInfo databases. Original studies assessing cognitive function in OABD (age ≥50 years ) containing, at a minimum, the domains of attention/processing speed, memory, and executive functions were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to summarize differences between patients and matched controls in each cognitive domain. We also conducted meta-regressions to estimate the impact of clinical and socio-demographic variables on these differences. RESULTS: Eight articles, providing data for 328 euthymic OABD patients and 302 healthy controls, were included in the meta-analysis. OABD showed worse performance in comparison with healthy controls, with large significant effect sizes (Hedge's g from -0.77 to -0.89; p < 0.001) in verbal learning and verbal and visual delayed memory. They also displayed statistically significant deficits, with moderate effect size, in processing speed, working memory, immediate memory, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency, psychomotor function, executive functions, attention, inhibition, and recognition (Hedge's g from -0.52 to -0.76; p < 0.001), but not in language and visuoconstruction domains. None of the examined variables were associated with these deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive dysfunction is present in OABD, with important deficits in almost all cognitive domains, especially in the memory domain. Our results highlight the importance of including a routine complete neuropsychological assessment in OABD and also considering therapeutic strategies in OABD.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".