Cognitive predictors of response to interpersonal and social rhythm therapy in mood disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in examining the potential moderating effects that cognitive functioning has on treatment outcome in bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). Therefore, the aim of this exploratory study was to examine the relationship between baseline cognitive function and treatment outcome in individuals with mood disorders who completed 12 months of interpersonal and social rhythm therapy (IPSRT), and were randomised to receive adjunctive cognitive remediation (CR) or no additional intervention. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with mood disorders (BD, n = 36, MDD, n = 22), who were randomised to IPSRT-CR or IPSRT, underwent cognitive testing at baseline and completed follow-up mood measures after 12 months. General linear modelling was used to examine the relationship between baseline cognitive function (both objective and subjective) and change in mood symptom burden, and functioning, from baseline to treatment-end. RESULTS: Poorer baseline attention/executive function was associated with less change in mood symptom burden, particularly depressive symptoms, at treatment-end. Additionally, slower psychomotor speed at baseline was associated with less improvement in mania symptom burden. Subjective cognitive function at baseline was not related to change in mood symptom burden at treatment-end, and neither objective nor subjective cognitive function was associated with functional outcome. LIMITATIONS: Due to the exploratory nature of the study, there was no correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Aspects of objective cognitive function were associated with treatment outcomes following psychotherapy. Further large-scale research is required to examine the role that cognitive function may have in determining various aspects of mood disorder recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".