MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Insight in early psychosis: a 1 year follow‐up

2002· article· en· W1953841854 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alisa R. Mintz, Jean Addington, Donald Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisDepression (economics)PsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyEarly psychosisClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insight is an important prognostic indicator in early psychosis, as its presence can enhance treatment compliance, thus reducing the risk of clinical deterioration. The Calgary Early Psychosis Programme (EPP) is a comprehensive treatment programme for individuals experiencing their first episode of psychosis. Purpose (i) to examine insight on admission and determine if change occurred in the first year of treatment and (ii) to determine if insight was associated with other symptoms. Methods Participants were 180 consecutive admissions to EPP who completed a 1‐year follow‐up. Insight, positive and negative symptoms were measured with the PANSS. Depression was measured with the Calgary Depression Scale. Results There was a significant improvement in insight from initial to 1‐year follow‐up ( P < 0.001). Insight was positively correlated with positive and negative symptoms ( P < 0.001) over time. Insight was negatively correlated with depression ( P < 0.001) at the initial assessment. Conclusions In these first episode patients, there is a significant improvement in insight over time. Insight is significantly related to positive and negative symptoms and to depression in the initial stages of the illness when the presence of depression is notable.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.286
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207