Psychosocial Impairment in Older Patients With Bipolar I Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to assess psychosocial functioning in older patients with bipolar I disorder compared with healthy subjects and to identify the psychopathological factors associated with poor functioning in patients. METHODS: We recruited 68 euthymic patients with bipolar I disorder from the outpatient unit and 89 healthy controls who were older than 50 years of age. In addition to clinical variables, we used other standardized measures, including the Young Mania Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, the Functional Assessment Short Test, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: Older patients with bipolar I disorder had poorer psychosocial functioning in general and in the domains of occupation, autonomy, and cognition than the healthy controls on the basis of previously defined Functional Assessment Short Test cutoff scores. We found that 35.3% (95% CI: 23%-47%) of the patients did not have clinically significant functional impairment, 38.2% (95% CI: 26%-50%) had mild impairment, and 26.5% (95% CI: 16%-37%) had moderate impairment. Depressive symptoms and impaired cognition were associated with poor overall functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The level of psychosocial functioning was heterogeneous among the patients. Subsyndromal depressive symptoms, even at low levels, and impaired cognition predicted poor functioning in euthymic middle-aged and older patients with bipolar I disorder.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".