MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Longitudinal outcome of first episode psychosis in adolescence

2002· article· en· W1569620398 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alissa Pencer, Jean Addington, Lorna Hogg, Donald Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisPsychiatryDepression (economics)PsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Longitudinal studyClinical psychologyYoung adultMedicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is little research examining the longitudinal course and outcome of psychotic disorders in adolescence. The purpose of this study was to examine outcome in 50 adolescents 1 and 2 years after admission to the Calgary Early Psychosis programme (EPP) a comprehensive programme for early psychosis. Measures of outcome included hospital admissions, relapse rates, suicide attempts, positive and negative symptoms (PANSS), depression (CDSS), Quality of life (QOL) substance use and cognitive functioning. 50 adolescents were assessed on these measures at 12 and 24 months and compared to a group of 50 adults from EPP. The adolescent group demonstrated significant improvements in positive symptoms, depression, quality of life, alcohol and drug use (P < 0. P < 0.001). There were no differences between the adolescents and adults. These results demonstrate that adolescents with psychosis have similar outcome to as adults after 1 and 2 years of optimal treatment, even though they present earlier for treatment. However, it is possible thatthe positive effects of earlier treatment may be offset by the possible poor prognosis of the earlier age of onset of this group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207