Back

Transdiagnostic Domain-specific Cognitive Impairment in Inter-episode Mood Disorders and its Relationship with Rest-Activity Phenotypes

Corponi, F.; Kalfas, M.; Reami, M.; Fanelli, G.; Ossola, P.; Jauhar, S.; Young, A. H.

2026-08-18 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.08.16.26360541 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction: Cognitive impairment and disturbed rest-activity patterns often persist between episodes of major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). Whether these deficits are disorder-specific or transdiagnostic remains unclear, as does the existence of a link between rest-activity phenotypes and cognitive performance. Methods: Using the All of Us Research Program, we derived normative deviation scores across four cognitive domains (sustained attention, inhibitory control, reward-based impulsivity, social cognition) from non-clinical controls (NCC), then compared deviations in MDD and BD. MDD was adequately powered to regress deviation scores on four 90-day Fitbit-derived phenotypes (step count, sleep duration, wakefulness after sleep onset, sleep timing variability); the same analysis was run on NCC as a sensitivity check. Results: Samples were substantially larger than prior works (MDD 5,087-6,536; BD 545-739; NCC 40,589-51,491). Relative to NCC, MDD and BD exhibited worse sustained attention (Delta Glass = -0.081 vs. -0.187) and higher impulsivity (Delta Glass = 0.092 vs. 0.240), with deficits more pronounced in BD. No wearable phenotype was significantly associated with cognitive performance in MDD (R2< 0.01); NCC associations, though significant, were of negligible magnitude (R2 <= 1.2%). Discussion: Inter-episode cognitive impairment was domain-selective rather than global, with a gradient BD > MDD. Despite adequate power, wearable rest-activity phenotypes were not associated with cognition in MDD. Whether this extends to BD, where deficits were largest, could not be tested due to limited power. Community-dwelling samples likely underestimate impairment relative to clinical cohorts.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.