Duration of untreated psychosis significantly associated with positive symptoms one year after treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addington J, Van Mastrigt S, Addington D. Duration of untreated psychosis: impact on 2-year outcome. Psychol Med 2004;34:277–84.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Does the duration of untreated psychosis influence outcomes one year after initial treatment? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: Prospective cohort study. ### ![Graphic][6] Setting: Early Psychosis Program, Calgary, Canada; timeframe not stated. ### ![Graphic][7] Population: 200 people (mean age 23 years), out of the 278 people admitted to the Calgary Early Psychosis Program, who completed the one year follow up assessment. Eligible participants had experienced their first episode of psychosis (DSM-IV criteria using Structured Clinical Interview), had significant positive symptoms (rated ⩾4 on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), and had received less than three months prior treatment. ### ![Graphic][8] Prognostic factors: The duration of untreated psychosis was correlated with symptoms and social functioning on entering the programme and after one year. Whether or not the length of untreated psychosis independently predicted symptom outcome and quality … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPsychological%2Bmedicine%26rft.stitle%253DPsychol%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DAddington%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D34%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D277%26rft.epage%253D284%26rft.atitle%253DDuration%2Bof%2Buntreated%2Bpsychosis%253A%2Bimpact%2Bon%2B2-year%2Boutcome.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1017%252FS0033291703001156%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14982133%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/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0033291703001156&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14982133&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F4%2F101.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220290700009&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".