A unified general cognitive factor explains impairment across schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, OCD and substance use disorder
Jayasankar, P.; Balachander, S.; Nayok, S. B.; Singh, A.; Dayalamurthy, P.; Joseph, M. S.; Das, A.; Bhattacharya, M.; Shaktan, A.; Hiremath, C. S.; Solanki, A. L.; Jayaraj, G.; Sreenivasalu, M.; N, S.; A R, A.; Syed, F. A.; Vinod, P.; Teotia, V.; Kurian, A.; JV, N.; K, R.; Arampady, C.; Manideepika, T.; Shareen, S.; P T, A.; V, M.; Ithal, D.; Mahadevan, J.; Nadella, R. K.; Sreeraj, V. S.; Venkatasubramanian, G.; John, J. P.; Benegal, V.; Reddy, Y. C. J.; Varghese, M.; Jain, S.; Mehta, U. M.; ADBS-CBM Consortium, ; Holla, B.; Viswanath, B.
Show abstract
BackgroundEmerging evidence suggests that cognitive impairment cuts across traditional psychiatric diagnoses and may reflect a shared underlying cognitive liability. We examined whether a general cognitive factor (gFc) accounts for transdiagnostic deficits across schizophrenia (SZ), bipolar disorder (BD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and substance use disorder (SUD). MethodsA total of 472 affected individuals and 253 population healthy controls (HC) completed a standardized cognitive battery. Bifactor confirmatory factor analysis was used to derive general cognitive factor (gFc) and domain-specific abilities(cognitive flexibility, working memory, new learning and social cognition). Model fit supported the bifactor structure. Linear mixed-effect models, with family as random effect, and demographic variables as fixed effect evaluated transdiagnostic and diagnosis specific impairments.. ResultsThe gFc was significantly reduced across all diagnoses groups relative to HC, [B(SE): BD -0.49 (0.07), OCD -0.21 (0.07), SUD -0.43(0.08), SZ -0.76 (0.08), all p < 0.001]; verbal learning showed additional diagnosis-specific deficits, most pronounced in SZ [B (SE): -0.59 (0.09)] and BD[B(SE): -0.48 (0.09)], both p <0.001. ConclusionA single gFc accounts for substantial cognitive dysfunction across major psychiatric disorders, while verbal-learning impairment appears diagnosis-specific. These findings support a dimensional architecture of cognition in psychiatry and identify gFc as a promising transdiagnostic target for clinical and mechanistic research.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Neurovegetative symptom subtypes in young people with major depressive disorder and their structural brain correlates 95%
- Metabolic Disturbances, Hemoglobin A1c, and Social Cognition Impairment in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders 94%
- Transdiagnostic dimensions of psychopathology explain individuals' unique deviations from normative neurodevelopment in brain structure 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cerebellar-Prefrontal Connectivity Predicts Negative Symptom Severity Across the Psychosis Spectrum 93%
- Variable Presence of an Evolutionarily New Brain Structure is Related to Trait Impulsivity 92%
- Neurocognitive measures of self-blame and risk prediction models of recurrence in major depressive disorder 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- An Examination of Sustained Versus Transient Distressing Psychotic-Like Experiences Using Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development℠ Study Data 96%
- Interrelations Between Dopaminergic-, GABAergic- and Glutamatergic Neurotransmitters in Antipsychotic-Naïve Psychosis Patients and the Association to Initial Treatment Response 94%
- Neuroimaging profiling identifies distinct brain maturational subtypes of youth with mood and anxiety disorders 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Dimensional gender diversity is associated with greater polygenic propensity for cognitive performance and interacts with other genetic factors in predicting health outcomes 92%
- Pathway-Specific Polygenic Scores for Lithium Response for Predicting Clinical Lithium Treatment Response in Patients with Bipolar Disorder 92%
- Convergent and Divergent Cerebellar Alterations in 22q11.2 Copy Number Variants 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.