M42. Metacognitive Deficits in Schizophrenia; Comparisons With Borderline Personality Disorder and Substance Use Disorder
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Metacognition is a psychological function that includes a spectrum of mental activities. These activities involve thinking about thinking and range from more discrete acts, in which people recognize specific thoughts and feelings, to more synthetic acts in which an array of intentions, thoughts, feelings, and connections between events are integrated into larger complex representations. Recently, interest has arisen in the important role that metacognitive deficits may play in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Research has found that many with schizophrenia experience compromised metacognitive capacity and the degree of impairment in metacognition has been linked to negative and disorganized symptoms, decrement in social functioning, and lower levels of subjective indicators of recovery. While metacognitive deficits have been broadly explored in schizophrenia, less is known about whether these deficits are similar or different than those found in other forms of serious mental illness. Methods: To explore this issue, we administered assessments of metacognition using the Metacognition Assessment Scale-Abbreviated, Alexithymia using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Social Cognition using the Bell Lysaker Emotion Recognition Scale to 65 adults with Schizophrenia, 34 adults with Borderline Personality Disorder (PD) and 32 adults with a Substance Use Disorder. We chose Borderline PD as our primary comparison because this group has also been found to have profound alterations in the ability to recognize and think about one’s own and others’ mental activities. We chose substance use disorder as a third psychiatric condition given that this is a common comorbidity of Borderline PD and Schizophrenia and because it has also been linked with deficits in the ability to reflect about mental states. Results: ANCOVA controlling for age revealed the Schizophrenia group had significant poorer overall metacognition compared to the other 2 groups while the Borderline PD group had significantly lower levels of metacognitive capacity compared to the Substance Use group. Multiple comparisons revealed that the Borderline PD group had significantly higher self-reflectivity and awareness of the other’s mind than the Schizophrenia group. In comparison with the Substance Use group, the Borderline PD condition had lower capacity to assume the perspective of others and the ability to use metacognitive knowledge than the Substance Use group. The Borderline PD and Schizophrenia group had significantly higher levels of alexithymia than the Substance Use group. Differences between the Borderline PD and Substance Use groups generally persisted after controlling for self-report of psychopathology and overall number of PD traits. No differences were among groups were found for social cognition. Conclusion: Results suggest that metacognitive functioning is differentially affected in severe mental disorders, with the deficits found in Schizophrenia being generally more severe than in Borderline PD or Substance Use disorders. Schizophrenia may involve unique deficits in the abilities needed for self-reflection and forming integrated ideas about others.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».