Relative Contributions of Psychiatric Symptoms and Neuropsychological Functioning to Quality of Life in First-Episode Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on the relationship between quality of life (QOL), psychiatric symptoms and neuropsychological functioning in a sample of young people who have experienced a first episode of psychosis 2-3 years following initial presentation. METHOD: Fifty-one participants aged 15-27 years old completed the short form of the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale (WHOQOL-Bref), a self-report instrument assessing physical, psychological, social and environmental aspects of QOL. A comprehensive neuropsychological battery was administered. Measures of psychiatric symptoms including depression (as assessed by the Calgary Depression Scale), positive, negative and general psychopathology (as assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) were obtained. RESULTS: Multiple regression analyses were used to evaluate the ability of neuropsychological measures and psychiatric symptoms to predict QOL. When neuropsychological variables were considered on their own, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency, verbal ability and sustained attention explained up to 28% of the variance in the four domains of QOL. However, in the presence of psychiatric symptoms, neuropsychological variables were no longer significant predictors for physical and psychological QOL; depression, general psychopathology and negative symptoms together explained up to 43% of the variance in QOL, with neuropsychological variables remaining significant for social and environmental QOL. CONCLUSIONS: In young people with their first episode of psychosis, QOL is more strongly related to levels of psychopathology, particularly depression, than neuropsychological deficits. This finding replicates previous studies in chronic schizophrenia that have suggested QOL is more strongly related to levels of psychopathology than the presence of neuropsychological deficits.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".