MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965759888 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.8.2.34

Specialised care for early psychosis may reduce number of readmissions

2005· letter· en· W1965759888 on OpenAlexaff
Robert B. Zipursky

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychiatryMental healthAntipsychoticPediatricsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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] Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4] Allocation: Concealed. ### ![Graphic][5] Blinding: Single blinded (assessors blinded). ### ![Graphic][6] Follow up period: 18 months. ### ![Graphic][7] Setting: Mental health service in Lambeth, London, UK; recruitment January 2000 to October 2001. ### ![Graphic][8] 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] 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207