MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039360026 · doi:10.1192/bjp.190.1.18

Adolescent-onset psychosis: prevalence, needs and service provision

2006· article· en· W2039360026 on OpenAlexaff
Leonie Boeing, Val Murray, Anthony J. Pelosi, Robert McCabe, Douglas Blackwood, R M Wrate

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsPsychiatryPsychosisMedicineAssertive community treatmentContext (archaeology)PopulationMental healthAnxietyEpidemiologyPsychologyEnvironmental healthMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known of the epidemiology and care needs of people with adolescent-onset psychosis. AIMS: To examine prevalence and the cross-sectional disability, needs and service provision for adolescent-onset psychosis in areas of central Scotland with a total population of 1.75 million. METHOD: We identified and contacted 103 young people using an opt-out research design. Fifty-three participants and their carers and keyworkers were interviewed using a modified version of the Cardinal Needs Schedule. RESULTS: The 3-year prevalence was 5.9 per 100,000 general population. Twenty-one (20%) adolescents were not in contact with mental health services; 80% of first admissions were to adult acute psychiatric wards. Those interviewed had high levels of morbidity: 29 (55%) had serious to pervasive impairment of functioning; there were relatively high levels of side-effects, negative symptoms, anxiety, occupational, friendship and family difficulties. Care provision was better for'clinical'than for'social'domains; 20% had five or more unmet needs; 17% had at least one intractable problem. CONCLUSIONS: This low-prevalence disorder requires an assertive multi-agency approach in the context of a national planning framework.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations68
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207