Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relation between substance use and cognition in individuals experiencing their first episode of psychosis. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional and longitudinal study. SETTING: An Early Psychosis Treatment and Prevention Program, an outpatient clinic in a psychiatry department at a university-affiliated hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with a psychotic illness who were admitted to an Early Psychosis Program; 266 patients were assessed at initial presentation, 159 at 1 year and 90 at 2 years. Most were outpatients. MEASURES: The effects of substance use (alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, cocaine, stimulants) on cognition were assessed. Substance use was determined by DSM-IV criteria, and the Case Manager Rating Scale was used to determine the level of substance use. A comprehensive cognitive battery of tests was used, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for schizophrenia was administered to all subjects to determine levels of positive and negative symptoms. RESULTS: Overall, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, there were no significant associations between cognitive functioning and the use of various substances. Substance use was associated with higher positive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with psychotic disorders who show mild-to-moderate abuse of substances, in particular alcohol and cannabis, do not exhibit more cognitive impairment than those who do not do use the substances. However, substance use may have other detrimental effects on the process of the psychotic illness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".