A cross-sectional study of cognitive performance in bipolar disorder across the lifespan: the cog-BD project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Neuroprogressive models of the trajectory of cognitive dysfunction in patients with bipolar disorder (BD) have been proposed. However, few studies have explored the relationships among clinical characteristics of BD, cognitive dysfunction, and aging. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis in euthymic participants with the MATRICS Cognitive Consensus Battery, the Trail Making Test B, the Stroop Test, and the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading. Age- and gender-equated control participants without a mental disorder [‘Healthy Controls’ – HC)] were assessed similarly. We compared cognitive performance both globally and in seven domains in four groups: younger BD (age ⩽49 years; n = 70), older BD (age ⩾50 years; n = 48), younger HC (n = 153), and older HC (n = 44). We also compared the BD and HC groups using age as a continuous measure. We controlled for relevant covariates and applied a Bonferroni correction. Results Our results support both an early impairment (‘early hit’) model and an accelerated aging model: impairment in attention/vigilance, processing speed, and executive function/working memory were congruent with the accelerated aging hypothesis whereas impairment in verbal memory was congruent with an early impairment model. BD and HC participants exhibited similar age-related decline in reasoning/problem solving and visuospatial memory. There were no age- or diagnosis-related differences in social cognition. Conclusion Our findings support that different cognitive domains are affected differently by BD and aging. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore trajectories of cognitive performance in BD across the lifespan.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".