MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medication adherence of individuals with a first episode of psychosis

2002· article· en· W2028430446 on OpenAlexaff
E. L. Coldham, Jean Addington, Donald Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisCannabisMedicineAntipsychoticPsychiatryQuality of life (healthcare)Medication adherenceFamily memberSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Internal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of adherence to antipsychotic medication in first episode patients and the correlates of adherence in this group. METHOD: Subjects were the first 200 admissions to an Early Psychosis Program. Adherence was determined on a three-point scale. Symptoms, medication side-effects, quality of life, substance use and family involvement were examined longitudinally. RESULTS: In their first year in the program 39% were non-adherent, 20% inadequately adherent, and 41% adherent. Non-adherent patients demonstrated more positive symptoms, more relapses, more alcohol and cannabis use, reduced insight, and poorer quality of life. They were younger, had an earlier age of onset and less likely to have a family member involved in treatment. CONCLUSION: Results for this group are similar to those reported in the literature. Correlates are often the consequence of non-adherence. Non-compliance has to be anticipated and relationships maintained with patients and families to intervene as soon as possible to minimize the consequence of non-compliance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations412
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207