Premorbid intelligence quotient and school failure as risk markers for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mood disorders significantly impact global health, with MDD ranking as the second leading cause of disability in the United States and BD ranking 18th. Despite their prevalence and impact, the relationship between premorbid intelligence and the subsequent development of BD and MDD remains inconclusive. This study investigates the potential of premorbid Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and school failure frequency as risk factors for Bipolar Disorder (BD) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in a birth cohort setting. We analyze data from the Pelotas population-based birth cohort study, comprising 3580 participants aged 22, who had no prior mood disorder diagnoses. Utilizing regression models and accounting for potential confounders, we assess the impact of IQ and school failure, measured at age 18, on the emergence of BD and MDD diagnoses at age 22, using individuals without mood disorders as comparators. Results reveal that lower IQ (below 70) at 18 is associated with an increased risk of BD (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 1.75, 95%CI: 1.00-3.09, p < 0.05), while higher IQ (above 120) is linked to MDD (AOR 2.16, 95%CI: 1.24-3.75, p < 0.001). Moreover, an elevated number of school failures is associated with increased BD risk (AOR 1.23, 95%CI: 1.11-1.41, p < 0.001), particularly for BD type 1 (AOR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17-1.58, p < 0.001). These findings offer insights into the distinct premorbid intellectual characteristics of BD and MDD and contribute to a deeper understanding of their developmental trajectories, potentially informing the development of risk assessment tools for mood disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".