A systematic review of the biomarkers associated with cognition and mood state in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Bipolar disorder (BD) is a severe psychiatric disorder characterized by changes in mood that alternate between (hypo) mania or depression and mixed states, often associated with functional impairment and cognitive dysfunction. But little is known about biomarkers that contribute to the development and sustainment of cognitive deficits. The aim of this study was to review the association between neurocognition and biomarkers across different mood states. Method Search databases were Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. A systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Studies were selected that focused on the correlation between neuroimaging, physiological, genetic or peripheral biomarkers and cognition in at least two phases of BD: depression, (hypo)mania, euthymia or mixed. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42023410782. Results A total of 1824 references were screened, identifying 1023 published articles, of which 336 were considered eligible. Only 16 provided information on the association between biomarkers and cognition in the different affective states of BD. The included studies found: (i) Differences in levels of total cholesterol and C reactive protein depending on mood state; (ii) There is no association found between cognition and peripheral biomarkers; (iii) Neuroimaging biomarkers highlighted hypoactivation of frontal areas as distinctive of acute state of BD; (iv) A deactivation failure has been reported in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), potentially serving as a trait marker of BD. Conclusion Only a few recent articles have investigated biomarker-cognition associations in BD mood phases. Our findings underline that there appear to be central regions involved in BD that are observed in all mood states. However, there appear to be underlying mechanisms of cognitive dysfunction that may vary across different mood states in BD. This review highlights the importance of standardizing the data and the assessment of cognition, as well as the need for biomarkers to help prevent acute symptomatic phases of the disease, and the associated functional and cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".