A pilot study examining the impact of lithium treatment and responsiveness on mnemonic discrimination in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mnemonic discrimination (MD), the ability to discriminate new stimuli from similar memories, putatively involves dentate gyrus pattern separation. Since lithium may normalize dentate gyrus functioning in lithium-responsive bipolar disorder (BD), we hypothesized that lithium treatment would be associated with better MD in lithium-responsive BD patients. METHODS: = 16 [23 %]) performed the Continuous Visual Memory Test (CVMT), which requires discriminating between novel and previously seen images. Before testing, all patients had prophylactic lithium responsiveness assessed over ≥1 year of therapy (with the Alda Score), although only thirty-eight patients were actively prescribed lithium at time of testing (55 %; 12/16 responders, 26/53 nonresponders). We then used computational modelling to extract patient-specific MD indices. Linear models were used to test how (A) lithium treatment, (B) lithium responsiveness via the continuous Alda score, and (C) their interaction, affected MD. RESULTS: Superior MD performance was associated with lithium treatment exclusively in lithium-responsive patients (Lithium x AldaScore β = 0.257 [SE 0.078], p = 0.002). Consistent with prior literature, increased age was associated with worse MD (β = -0.03 [SE 0.01], p = 0.005). LIMITATIONS: Secondary pilot analysis of retrospectively collected data in a cross-sectional design limits generalizability. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to examine MD performance in BD. Lithium is associated with better MD performance only in lithium responders, potentially due to lithium's effects on dentate gyrus granule cell excitability. Our results may influence the development of behavioural probes for dentate gyrus neuronal hyperexcitability in BD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".