Using the global functioning social and role scales in a first‐episode sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Dysfunction in social and role functioning is a hallmark of schizophrenia, which is present in both the prodromal phase and at the first episode of the illness. Two new measures, Global Functioning: Social and Global Functioning: Role, were developed to address functioning in the prodromal phase of the illness. The purpose of this study was to determine if these measures would be useful in a first episode population. METHODS: Forty-eight stable outpatients were assessed using the new social and role scales. A subsample of 33 subjects was assessed at 6 and 12 months. All subjects were additionally assessed using standardized measures of psychotic symptoms, social functioning, self-esteem and beliefs about illness. RESULTS: Average ratings on the Global Functioning: Social and Role scales were 6 (standard deviation (SD) = 1.60) and 5.5 (SD = 2.2), respectively. Both social and role scales were significantly correlated with relevant subscales on the Social Functioning Scale. Good social but not role functioning was related to low levels of both positive and negative symptoms and to high self-esteem. Role but not social functioning was related to personal beliefs about the illness, such as having control over illness and feeling less stigmatized. Repeated measures analyses demonstrated no change over time for either social or role functioning. CONCLUSION: The Global Functioning: Social and Role scales appear to be useful and valid measures of functioning in first-episode patients. These ratings are similar to those reported in prodromal studies supporting the idea that poor functioning may be a stable long-standing deficit.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".