MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns, predictors and impact of substance use in early psychosis: a longitudinal study

2006· article· en· W2042913470 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Addington, Donald Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisPsychiatryLongitudinal studyPsychologySubstance useClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to determine the prevalence of substance use and its impact on outcome 3 years after presentation for a first-episode of psychosis. METHOD: Subjects were 203 consecutive admissions to an early psychosis program. Assessments included substance use, positive, negative and depressive symptoms and social functioning. Assessments occurred at baseline, and 1-, 2- and 3-year follow-ups. RESULTS: The prevalence of substance misuse was high with 51% having a substance use disorder (SUD), 33% with cannabis SUD and 35% with an alcohol SUD. Numbers with an alcohol SUD declined considerably by 1 year and for cannabis SUD by 2 years. Substance misuse was significantly associated with male gender, young age and age of onset and cannabis misuse with increased positive symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the high rates of substance misuse, in particular cannabis, in first-episode psychosis. It further demonstrates that these rates can be reduced.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations181
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207