Metacognitive Functioning in Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metacognition has been described as the knowledge of our own cognitive processes. Metacognitive deficits are common in schizophrenia, but little is known about metacognition before the onset of full-blown psychosis. AIMS: This study aimed to longitudinally characterize metacognition in a sample of individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis, and to determine if metacognition was related to later conversion to psychosis. METHOD: Participants (153 CHR individuals; 68 help seeking controls, HSC) were part of the large multi-site PREDICT study, which sought to determine predictors of conversion to psychosis. They were tested at baseline and 6 months using the Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire (MCQ) that has five sub-scales assessing different domains of metacognition. RESULTS: RESULTS of the mixed-effect models demonstrated significantly poorer scores at baseline for the CHR group compared to the HSC group in Negative beliefs about uncontrollability, Negative beliefs and the overall MCQ score. At the 6-month assessment, no difference was observed in metacognition between the two groups, but both groups showed improvement in metacognition over time. Those who later converted to psychosis had poorer performance on metacognitive beliefs at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: A poorer performance in metacognition can be seen as a marker of developing a full blown psychotic illness and confirms the potential value of assessing metacognitive beliefs in individuals vulnerable for psychosis.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 it