Risk factors for mood disorders among offspring of parents with bipolar disorder: Findings from a discordant-sibling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this naturalistic, prospective study was to identify risk factors for mood disorders in offspring of parents with bipolar disorder (BPD) using the discordant-sibling design by comparing premorbid psychopathology or symptoms, temperament, personality traits and coping style as well as the perception of family-related characteristics among affected and unaffected siblings within the same family. This approach controls for confounding by unmeasured genetic and environmental factors shared within families. Our sample comprised 24 families of a parent with BPD with at least one child that developed BPD or major depressive disorder (n = 31), and at least one child who did not. Offspring were followed for a mean duration of 16.2 (s.d: 4.6) years. Information was collected from the offspring themselves. Generalized linear mixed models only revealed differences in three dimensions of the Dimension of Temperament Survey-Revised (DOTS-R) version: Offspring with mood disorders scored higher on "Approach-withdrawal", "Rhythmicity for daily habits", and "Task orientation" than their unaffected siblings. The higher scores, and not lower scores as expected, on these temperament dimensions observed in offspring that subsequently developed mood disorders may reflect increased vulnerability, but they could also mirror premorbid mood swings or strategies to cope with them.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".