Cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder in comparison to mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To conduct a systematic review to describe cognitive abilities in bipolar disorder (BD) in comparison to cognitive abilities in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Methods A literature search was performed with no year or language restrictions. The search yielded 1,461 articles, with 1,261 remaining after removal of duplicates, five of which were suitable for the systematic review: two for the comparison between BD and MCI and three comparing BD and dementia. Results Analyses from our systematic review showed that euthymic individuals with BD present impairments in cognitive domains such as attention and executive functioning, motor skills, conceptual thinking, and visuo-spatial abilities that are equally severe as or more severe than the impairments observed in individuals with MCI. In contrast, studies comparing BD and dementia indicated that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) both showed greater cognitive deficits than BD during euthymia, whereas BD during a mood episode demonstrated higher cognitive impairments than bvFTD. Conclusion Findings from our systematic review suggest that cognitive impairments in euthymic BD fall into a range between the impairments seen in MCI and those seen in dementia. More studies are needed to analyze these comparisons, while also focusing on comparing different clinical stages of BD with MCI and dementia to analyze the progression of the clinical course and cognitive dysfunction in BD.PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42020150412
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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) | 0.028 | 0.001 |
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".