Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients presenting with first‐episode psychosis and concurrent substance misuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the incidence of concurrent substance misuse among individuals entering first-episode psychosis treatment, and examine whether patients with concurrent substance misuse differ on variables relevant to service planning. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n=376) were assessed using standardized instruments. RESULTS: Twenty-two per cent met abuse or dependence criteria for a single substance, and 8% met criteria for two substances. Most met criteria for marijuana or marijuana and alcohol. The majority of patients with a concurrent disorder were male, and on average they were 3.5 years younger at psychosis onset. Patients with a concurrent disorder experienced worse 'positive' and anxiety symptoms in the month before treatment. Premorbidly they had better social functioning, but worse academic functioning. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences between patients entering first-episode psychosis treatment with and without a concurrent substance misuse. Early intervention efforts might be informed by our accumulating knowledge about the characteristics of patients who have both disorders.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".