Specialised care for early psychosis may reduce number of readmissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Craig TK, Garety P, Power P, et al . The Lambeth Early Onset (LEO) Team: randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of specialised care for early psychosis. BMJ 2004;329:1067–70.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q What is the effect of a specialised care team for early psychosis on relapse and readmissions? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: Concealed. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: Single blinded (assessors blinded). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 18 months. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: Mental health service in Lambeth, London, UK; recruitment January 2000 to October 2001. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 144 adults (16–40 years old) with non-affective psychosis (ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizotypal, or delusional disorder) presenting to psychiatric services for the first or second time, with no previous routine community mental health treatment. Excluded were asylum seekers, and people with organic psychosis or a primary substance addiction. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Intervention: Specialised assertive outreach care by a multidisciplinary community mental health team, who provided extended access to care (weekends and holidays), and individually tailored evidence-based treatment including low dose atypical antipsychotic drugs, cognitive behavioural therapy, family counselling, and vocational strategies as necessary; standard care by … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.38246.594873.7C%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15485934%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=329/7474/1067&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F2%2F34.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".