Skip to main content
. 2014 Jul 16;40(6):1227–1243. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbu100

Table 4.

Bipolar Sample Demographics

Characteristic BPP (N = 33) BPW (N = 40) HCS (N = 56) Significance (HCS, BPP, BPW) Significance (BPW vs BPP)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F Value/ Chi-Square P Value, 2 Tail T Value/ Chi-Square P Value, 2 Tail
Age (y) 34.18 (10.9) 30.20 (11.5) 31.25 (10.3) 1.29 .28 1.51 .14
Gender (% female) 21 (63%) 32 (80%) 32 (57%) 5.52 .06 2.43 .12
Education (y) 13.94 (1.6) 14.45 (2.1) 15.11 (2.1) 3.75 .03 1.14 .26
Mother’s education (y) 13.67 (3.0) 14.26 (2.3) 13.63 (2.6) 0.77 .47 0.96 .34
Father’s education (y) 14.64 (3.4) 15.00 (3.8) 12.98 (3.9) 3.97 .02 0.43 .67
Mean parental education 14.15 (2.9) 14.63 (2.7) 13.30 (2.9) 2.45 .09 0.67 .50
Clinical course
 Age at diagnosis (y) 18.27 (6.1) 18.73 (6.9) N/A 0.29 .77
 Duration of illness (y) 15.91 (10.9) 11.48 (9.1) N/A 1.89 .06
Current symptomatology
 Depression (HAM-D) 3.12 (3.1) 4.33 (4.0) 0.33 (0.7) 25.80 .0000 1.41 .16
 Mania (YMRS) 2.45 (3.3) 2.88 (3.7) 0.15 (0.4) 14.55 .0000 0.51 .61
 Psychosis (BPRS) 28.79 (4.4) 27.90 (3.6) 24.56 (1.0) 23.56 .0000 0.95 .35
Medications, n (%)
 Mood stabilizer(s) 18 (54%) 19 (47%) N/A 0.36 .55
 Antidepressant(s) 11 (33%) 20 (50%) N/A 2.06 .15
 Atypical antipsychotic(s) 15 (45%) 10 (25%) N/A 3.36 .07
 Anxiolytic/benzodiazepine(s) 12 (36%) 14 (35%) N/A 0.01 .90
 Lithium 8 (24%) 5 (12%) N/A 1.70 .19
 Unmedicated 6 (18%) 6 (15%) N/A 0.13 .72
 Typical Antipsychotic(s) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) N/A 0.84 .36
Comorbid diagnoses, n (%)
 Anxiety 13 (39%) 19 (47%) N/A 0.48 .49
 Alcohol 18 (54%) 22 (55%) N/A 0.00 .97
 Drug use history 14 (42%) 16 (40%) N/A 0.04 .83
Signal to noise 217.71 (51.1) 216.04 (54.0) 215.45 (58.9) 55.19 .98 0.14 .89
% Frames flagged 11.74 (9.5) 10.82 (10.1) 9.74 (10.4) 0.42 .66 0.43 .67

Note: BPP, bipolar patients with psychosis history; BPW, bipolar patients without psychosis history; HCS, healthy control subjects; BPRS, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression rating scale; Hx, history; YMRS, Young Mania Rating Scale. Age, education levels, parental education, age at diagnosis and duration of illness are expressed in years. Of note, no pairwise BPP-BPW comparisons reached significance. As mentioned in the “Method” section, we selected a subset of SCZ (N = 73) patients that demographically matched BD patients for follow-up pairwise comparisons (shown in figure 5). If there were significant differences between clinical groups (eg, gender proportion and % frames scrubbed), we used these variables as covariates.