Association of Lithium and Second-Generation Antipsychotics with Neurocognition in Youth with Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Numerous studies have examined the association of antimanic medications with neurocognition in adults with bipolar disorder (BD). However, few studies have examined this topic in youth. Thus, we aimed to examine the association of lithium and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), the first-line antimanic medications for youth with BD, with neurocognition in a relatively large sample of youth with BD. Methods: Participants included 91 youth with BD-I, -II, or -Not Otherwise Specified, aged 13–20 years ( n = 14 current lithium use, n = 51 current SGA use). We examined four tests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery: Intra/Extra Dimensional Set-Shifting Task (IED), Rapid Visual Information Processing Task (RVP), Stockings of Cambridge Test (SOC), and Affective Go/No-Go (AGN). Within-sample Z-scores were computed, and a global neurocognitive composite score and g factor derived from these tests comprised the primary outcomes. Multivariable analyses controlled for age, sex, and IQ. Results: Current lithium use was significantly associated with poorer cognitive flexibility/set-shifting (IED). After further controlling for lifetime comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and current depression symptoms in sensitivity analyses, the lithium finding was no longer significant. Current SGA use was significantly associated with greater affective processing bias (AGN). No significant findings survived correction for multiple comparisons. All other cognitive outcomes were not significantly associated with current lithium use, current SGA use, or total number of current medications. Conclusions: Treatment with lithium or SGAs was associated with minimal neurocognitive impairments, with small effect sizes in primary multivariable analyses. This study adds to the limited body of literature examining medication use in relation to neurocognition in youth with BD. While the current study cannot rule out associations of smaller effect size, present findings suggest that leading mood-stabilizing medications are not associated with frank neurocognitive impairments in youth with BD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".