Intervention Research in Psychosis: Issues Related to the Assessment of Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality of life has emerged as the ideal of modern medicine viewed from a biopsychosocial perspective. The concept has been increasingly used as an important attribute in patient care and clinical studies as well as the basis in many health economic evaluations. Although the concept has been extensively applied in a number of other medical fields such as oncology, cardiovascular, and arthritis, it is only recently that quality of life has received serious attention in the study of severe psychiatric disorders. For the concept to be meaningfully applied in the study of these disorders, several basic and methodological issues have to be adequately resolved. Five such issues are identified: definition of quality of life, the subjective/objective dichotomy, significant determinants of quality of life, how quality of life is measured, and the role of quality of life in clinical management and health economics. Unless these issues are adequately clarified and resolved, the recent heightened interest in the concept of quality of life may fade away, and that would be a missed opportunity in the mental health field.
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 | 0.270 | 0.357 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".