Is there an association between neurocognitive performance and medication adherence in first episode psychosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Medication adherence is a determining factor for symptomatic remission and relapse prevention following a first episode of psychosis (FEP). Neurocognitive abilities have received only scant attention so far as a risk factor for poor adherence but significant impairments with memory and/or planning abilities could play a role. We examined early medication adherence following admission to a specialized clinical programme for FEP. METHOD: One hundred sixty FEP participants and 35 healthy controls completed an exhaustive neurocognitive assessment. FEP participants were categorized as a function of their medication adherence at 6 months into poor (n = 34), partial (n = 27) and full (n = 99) adherence, respectively. Domain-specific and global measures of cognitive ability were examined. RESULTS: No measure of neurocognition could significantly discriminate amongst the three medication adherence groups. CONCLUSION: These results suggest no strong associations between neurocognitive abilities and medication adherence in first episode of psychosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".