MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001515160 · doi:10.1159/000285058

Empirical Assessment of the Factorial Structure of Clinical Symptoms in Schizophrenia

2010· article· en· W2001515160 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychopathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Confirmatory factor analysisClinical psychologyGoodness of fitMoodStructural equation modelingPsychometricsPsychiatryPsychosisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is widely used as a method for the assessment of symptoms of schizophrenia but the most complete model of how symptoms are structured has not been determined. Using the methods of confirmatory factor analysis with a large sample of 1,233 of schizophrenic subjects this study examined the goodness of fit of 20 previously proposed models. None of these proposed models met criteria for adequate fit to the empirical data. The sample was then stratified and half of the data was used to calibrate a new model. The model was validated in the second half of the data. The new pentagonal model uses 25 of the 30 items of the PANSS in 5 factors: positive, negative, dysphoric mood, activation, and and autistic preoccupation. Patients who varied widely in age, severity, and chronicity of illness did not differ in their overall symptom structure. The results of this study also implicated some problems in the validity of the PANSS as currently configured when used to assess symptoms of schizophrenia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.457 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it