Brain age and cognitive functioning in first-episode bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is significant heterogeneity in cognitive function in patients with bipolar I disorder (BDI); however, there is a dearth of research into biological mechanisms that might underlie cognitive heterogeneity, especially at disease onset. To this end, this study investigated the association between accelerated or delayed age-related brain structural changes and cognition in early-stage BDI. Methods First episode patients with BDI ( n = 80) underwent cognitive assessment to yield demographically normed composite global and domain-specific scores in verbal memory, non-verbal memory, working memory, processing speed, attention, and executive functioning. Structural magnetic resonance imaging data were also collected from all participants and subjected to machine learning to compute the brain-predicted age difference (brainPAD), calculated by subtracting chronological age from age predicted by neuroimaging data (positive brainPAD values indicating age-related acceleration in brain structural changes and negative values indicating delay). Patients were divided into tertiles based on brainPAD values, and cognitive performance compared amongst tertiles with ANCOVA. Results Patients in the lowest (delayed) tertile of brainPAD values (brainPAD range −17.9 to −6.5 years) had significantly lower global cognitive scores ( p = 0.025) compared to patients in the age-congruent tertile (brainPAD range −5.3 to 2.4 yrs), and significantly lower verbal memory scores ( p = 0.001) compared to the age-congruent and accelerated (brainPAD range 2.8 to 16.1 yrs) tertiles. Conclusion These results provide evidence linking cognitive dysfunction in the early stage of BDI to apparent delay in typical age-related brain changes. Further studies are required to assess how age-related brain changes and cognitive functioning evolve over time.
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) | 0.002 | 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".