Treatment history in the psychosis prodrome: characteristics of the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Early identification and better characterization of the prodromal phase of psychotic illness can lead to targeted treatment and, perhaps, prevention of many of the devastating effects of a first psychotic episode. The primary aim of this manuscript is to describe the treatment histories of a large cohort of individuals who entered into one of seven prodromal research programs in a North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study consortium. METHODS: Treatment histories from 372 clinical high-risk subjects are described along with demographic, symptom, diagnostic and functional variables that may have contributed to treatment decisions for this group of individuals. RESULTS: Of all subjects included, 82.1% had received psychosocial and/or pharmacologic treatment prior to entry. Psychosocial interventions were more common in the attenuated psychotic syndrome prodromal sample, especially those with more negative, disorganized or general symptoms and more impaired functioning. Psychotropic medication had been administered to individuals with a history of Axis I disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Given the many potential clinical presentations, treatments and ethical issues connected with the psychosis-risk syndrome, it is not surprising that clinicians administered a broad range of interventions to study participants prior to their entry into the various research programs. Those individuals with milder and non-specific symptoms were more likely to have received psychosocial treatments, whereas those with more severe symptoms received pharmacologic intervention. Clinical treatment research is needed that addresses the complexities of these psychosis-risk states and helps to specify appropriate treatment at different stages of the psychosis prodrome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".