Evaluation of Neurocognitive Functions of Children and Adolescents Diagnosed with Pediatric Bipolar Disorder and Disruptive Mood Dysregulation and at High Risk for Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Pediatric Bipolar Disorder (BPD) is a chronic psychiatric disorder that alters normal and psychological development processes among patients. Although cognitive deficits in BPD have identified in recent studies, little is known about the developmental trajectory of these deficits. DMDD is a newly defined diagnosis included in the DSM-V. Since it added a new dimension to the clinical spectrum but few studies conducted on DMDD, there are some conflicting discussions in the literature about how to distinguish this disorder from other childhood psychiatric disorders and how to treat it. Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the phenomenological and neuropsychological differences between children and adolescents with a diagnosis of BPD (Pediatric Bipolar Disorder), DMDD (Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder), and children and adolescents who are genetically at high risk for Bipolar Disorder (BD), and healthy controls (HCs) who do not have any psychiatric diagnosis, to investigate endophenotypes that may be predictive for BD. Methods Our study sample consists of four groups, the BPD group (n=30), the Risk group (n=25), the DMDD group (n=36), and the Healthy Control group (n=29). All participants were evaluated by the “Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children—Now and Lifetime Pattern (K-SADS-PL)”. “Young Mania Rating Scale/Parent Form (YMRS-ABF), Conner’s Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-48), Child and Adolescent Behavior Rating Scale (CBCL)” scales were filled by parents, and “Child Depression Inventory (CDI), Youth Self-Report Form for 11-18 Years Olds (YSR)” scales were filled by children and adolescents. Neurocognitive test battery was applied to each participant: Continuous Performance Test (CPT), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT), Trait Making Test A and B sections (TMT-A/B), California Verbal Learning Test-Child version (CVLT-C). Results While it was determined that the cases in the BPD and DMDD groups performed significantly worse in CPT, SCWT, CVLT-C, TMT A/B tests compared to healthy controls, it was found that the subjects in the Risk group performed worse at the CPT test than healthy controls. In addition, the cases in the BPD, Risk and DMDD groups reported more clinical and behavioral problems than the healthy controls. Conclusions There is a significant deterioration in the areas of continuous attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, response prevention, verbal memory and working memory in the BPD and DMDD groups, and in the continuous attention area in the Risk group compared to healthy controls. Prospective follow-up and imaging studies using larger samples and a larger neurocognitive test battery in the future will better reveal the neuropsychological characteristics of the BPD, Risk and DMDD groups. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".