Cognitive, clinical, and functional characteristics of verbally superior schizophrenia patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existence of small numbers of schizophrenia patients with superior ability in specific cognitive domains is implied by meta-analytic evidence as well as by occasional empirical reports. The authors identified 25 patients with superior (i.e., > or =90th percentile) ability on the Vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale 3rd edition (Wechsler, 1997). These cognitively advantaged patients were compared with 22 healthy participants performing at the superior level and with 126 schizophrenia patients and 50 healthy participants scoring below the superior range. Verbally superior schizophrenia patients and verbally superior healthy participants had similar cognitive profiles and life skills performance, but diverged markedly in terms of independent "real-world" functioning. Verbally superior patients significantly outperformed more typical patients in other aspects of cognitive performance, life skills, and support requirements. However, severity of positive and negative symptoms was equivalent in the patient groups. Detailed biobehavioral study of cognitively exceptional patients may offer new insights into mechanisms mediating psychotic 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".