Perceived cognitive loss, symptomology, and psychological well-being with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with bipolar disorder (BD) commonly present with cognitive deficits. Many also report subjective or perceived cognitive failures. For this study, we identified four distinct clusters of adults with BD on the basis of both BD symptoms (depression and hypo/mania) and perceived cognitive errors (i.e., forgetfulness, distractibility, false triggering). We hypothesized that participants reporting more BD symptoms and cognitive errors would report lower psychological well-being (i.e., self-efficacy, life scheme, life satisfaction). A second objective was to determine if and how clusters differed in terms of BD related factors (e.g., subtypes, sleep, medications) and sociodemographic differences such as age of participants. From the BADAS (Bipolar Affective Disorder and older Adults) Study, we identified 281adults with BD (M = 44.27 years of age, range 19-81), recruited via social media. RESULTS: All clusters significantly differed across all grouping variables except symptoms of hypo/mania due to low frequency. Across clusters, perceived cognitive failures and BD symptoms increased in lockstep; that is, those reporting more cognitive errors also reported significantly higher symptoms of both depression and hypo/mania. As hypothesized, they also reported significantly lower psychological well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Age did not significantly differ across clusters in contrast to existing research in which cognitive loss is objectively measured. That is, perceived cognitive errors are significantly associated with lower psychological well-being for both young and older adults with 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".