Impulsivity in first-degree relatives at risk of psychosis and mania: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Impulsivity is elevated in psychosis and during mania in bipolar disorder. Studies in unaffected relatives may help establish whether impulsivity is a heritable, state independent endophenotype. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine whether impulsivity is elevated in unaffected relatives of those with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder, compared to controls. Databases were systematically searched up until March 2023 for articles reporting data on a behavioral or self-report measure of impulsivity in first-degree relatives and controls. Nineteen studies were included. Behavioral (10 studies, d = 0.35, p < 0.001) and self-reported impulsivity was significantly elevated in bipolar disorder relatives compared to controls (5 studies, d = 0.46, p < 0.001), with small effect sizes. Relatives of those with schizophrenia did not show significantly elevated impulsivity compared to controls on behavioral measures (6 studies, d = 0.42, p = 0.102). There were not enough studies to conduct a meta-analysis on self-report data in schizophrenia relatives or schizoaffective disorder relatives (self-report or behavioral). Study quality was good, however there was moderate to high heterogeneity in behavioral meta-analyses. Results suggest elevated impulsivity may be an endophenotype for bipolar disorder, present in an attenuated state before and after the illness and in at-risk individuals. This trait, amongst other behavioral and psychological indices, could be used to identify those who are at risk of developing bipolar disorder. Future research should refine measurement across studies and establish which components of impulsivity are affected in those at risk of psychotic and bipolar disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".