The Contribution of Social Factors to the Development of Schizophrenia: A Review of Recent Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate recent evidence suggesting that social factors are causally related to the development of schizophrenia. METHOD: I conducted a sytematic review of MEDLINE to identify possibly relevant studies. The search was limited to peer-reviewed studies and review articles appearing in English-language journals since 1996. Studies were included if they used standardized diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia or standardized assessment instruments for psychotic symptoms. RESULTS: Studies of migrants to western Europe provide compelling support for the notion that social factors contribute to the development of schizophrenia. Findings such as excessively high risk for schizophrenia in second-generation immigrants are difficult to explain solely in terms of biological or genetic factors. A growing number of studies implicate childhood exposure to social adversity as a risk factor for schizophrenia, although few studies have used prospective designs. The increased incidence of schizophrenia risk associated with urban birth and (or) urban upbringing suggests possible social causation, but these findings are more ambiguous. Thus far, no studies have explored actual mechanisms by which exposure to social factors might generate psychotic symptoms, although animal experiments suggest that social defeat or social exclusion may cause dopamine dysregulation or sensitization. CONCLUSIONS: The accumulating evidence suggesting a role for social factors in the development of schizophrenia arises primarily from studies of migrants conducted in Europe. The mechanisms by which social factors exert their influence remain unknown. Future investigations of social causation should clarify the temporal relation between exposure to social defeat and (or) social adversity and the development of psychotic symptoms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".