Relationship between subjective cognitive functioning and fluid and crystallized cognitive abilities in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: People with bipolar disorder (BD) often show inaccurate subjective ratings of their objective cognitive function. However, it is unclear what information individuals use to formulate their subjective ratings. This study evaluated whether people with BD are likely using information about their crystallized cognitive abilities (which involve an accumulated store of verbal knowledge and skills and are typically preserved in BD) or their fluid cognitive abilities (which involve the capacity for new learning and information processing in novel situations and are typically impaired in BD) to formulate their subjective cognitive ratings. METHOD: Eighty participants diagnosed with BD and 55 control volunteers were administered cognitive tests assessing crystallized and fluid cognitive abilities. Subjective cognitive functioning was assessed with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ), daily functioning was rated using the Multidimensional Scale of Independent Functioning (MSIF) and the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF), and quality of life was assessed with the Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder scale (QoL.BD). RESULTS: The BD group exhibited considerably elevated subjective cognitive complaints relative to controls. Among participants with BD, CFQ scores were associated with fluid cognitive abilities including measures of memory and executive function, but not to crystallized abilities. After controlling for objective cognition and depression, higher cognitive complaints predicted poorer psychosocial outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive self-reports in BD may represent a metacognitive difficulty whereby cognitive self-appraisals are distorted by a person's focus on their cognitive weaknesses rather than strengths. Moreover, negative cognitive self-assessments are associated with poorer daily functioning and diminished quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".