Cognitive impairment among an Egyptian sample of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The cognitive profile among patients with schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder (BD) has varied widely across different studies. The aim of the current study was to compare different cognitive domains using psychometric and neurophysiological tests in patients with SZ to those with BD. A case–control study was conducted on 30 BD, 30 SZ and 30 age and sex matched control group. Each subject was submitted to the following: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-3rd edition (WAIS-III), Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R), Memory Assessment Scales (MAS), and the P300 event related potential (ERP). Results SZ and BD patients had significantly lower total and subscales of WAIS-III scores than the control group. SZ patients had significantly higher deterioration index (DI) than controls, while absence of such significant between BD and controls. SZ patients reported significantly lower MoCA scores and subitems, especially in visuospatial, naming, attention, delayed recall, and orientation subtests than controls. Only visuospatial and delayed recall scores were significantly decreased in BD than controls. SZ patients performed poorer on BVMT-R subscales than the control group. Both SZ and BD groups had lower mean values of all subscales except verbal assessment in the four memory tests. P300 latencies and amplitude had no significant difference among the three groups, although the BD group had a shorter P300 latency. Conclusion Patients with SZ and BD had significantly lower scores on various cognitive function domains in comparison to controls with more affection in SZ. The frequency of mood episodes, disease duration, and education level must be considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".