MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Duration of untreated psychosis: impact on 2‐year outcome

2002· article· en· W1572781216 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Addington, Sarah van Mastrigt, Donald Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsdupPsychosisNeurocognitiveInternal medicinePsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryMedicinePediatricsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence demonstrating the predictive value of a long duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) remains equivocal. We assessed the impact of DUP on outcome over a 2‐year period in 203 first episode patients in an early psychosis programme. Symptoms (PANSS) were assessed every 3 months and functional outcome (QOL), neurocognitive functioning and relapse rates were assessed annually. Median DUP was 26 weeks, mean DUP was 80 weeks, mean log10 DUP was 23 weeks. Long DUP was significantly associated with positive symptoms (P < 0.001), and quality of life (P < 0.01) in the first year. Since there are no strong a priori grounds for a ‘cutoff’ level for long DUP, we compared those who were in remission (i.e. no positive symptom score greater than 3 on the PANSS) with those who had failed to achieve remission by 6 months. Results were that those who had failed to achieve remission of positive symptoms after 6 months of a comprehensive treatment approach had a significantly longer DUP (P < 0.001). Thus, in this sample of first episode subjects receiving optimal treatment DUP was associated with a poorer recovery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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