MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1688010310 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0222

Cognitive functioning in first-episode schizophrenia

2002· article· en· W1688010310 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean Addington, Donald Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryCognitionPsychosisPositive and Negative Syndrome ScalePsychologyVerbal memoryOutpatient clinicMemory clinicClinical psychologyMedicineCognitive impairmentInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cognitive functioning of a sample of patients experiencing their first episode of schizophrenia with that of patients with an established schizophrenia illness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and longitudinal study. SETTING: The Calgary Early Psychosis Treatment and Prevention Program and an outpatient clinic in a department of psychiatry at a university-affiliated hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and eleven patients who were experiencing their first episode of schizophrenia and 76 outpatients with an established schizophrenia illness. MEASURES: The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for schizophrenia was administered to all subjects to determine levels of positive and negative symptoms. Executive functioning, information processing, visual memory, and immediate and delayed verbal memory were assessed. RESULTS: There were limited differences between the 2 groups in terms of cognitive functioning. Although the first-episode patients demonstrated generally superior scores, their performance was impaired. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the findings of previous studies suggesting that first-episode patients demonstrate cognitive impairments similar to those of patients with an established schizophrenia illness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations94
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207