Transitions to adulthood in first‐episode psychosis: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The first aim of this study is to compare attainment of five markers of transition to adulthood between young adults with first-episode psychosis and young adults without any psychopathology. The second aim is to examine if the association between age group and transition to adulthood is similar for individuals who experience first-episode psychosis versus those who do not. METHODS: Participants were 50 young adults with first-episode schizophrenia aged between 18 and 30 years old, and 50 volunteers without any psychopathology matched for sex and age. Participants were assessed with the Quality of Life Scale and a questionnaire on markers of transition to adulthood. RESULTS: Significant differences appear between the groups for three of the five markers of transition to adulthood, namely: residential/financial independence, educational attainment and involvement in a romantic relationship. The effect of age on several markers is significant for the comparison group only. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation interventions should be informed by a developmental perspective on community functioning for young adults with first-episode schizophrenia. Vocational rehabilitation should be extended to focus more extensively on supported education and not only on supported employment, and interventions targeting residential independence should be granted more attention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".