Agreement Between Self-Rated and Clinically Assessed Symptoms in Subjects With Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the capacity of acutely ill patients with psychosis (N = 40) to self-report their symptoms by comparing self-assessment and objective measures. Positive, negative, and depressive symptoms were rated using the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, and the Calgary Depression Scale. Insight level was measured using the Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder. Patients were asked to self-report positive, negative, and depressive symptoms using the Community Assessment of Psychic Experience. Patients presenting with acute psychotic disorders are able to assess fairly their positive, negative, and depressive symptoms. Significant associations were found between self-reported and objective measures of positive, negative, and depressive symptoms independently of insight level. Individual positive and negative symptoms were correctly self-assessed, except for persecutory delusion and alogia, respectively. These results suggest that self-report questionnaires can be used in educational programs to favor the patient's therapeutic adherence.
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".