MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploratory analysis of social cognition and neurocognition in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis

2014· article· en· W2056198702 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Yong, Mariapaola Barbato, David L. Penn, Richard S.E. Keefe, Scott W. Woods, Diana O. Perkins, Jean Addington

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsNeurocognitivePsychologySocial cognitionCognitionPsychosisSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Theory of mindDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyWorking memoryCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurocognition and social cognition are separate but related constructs known to be impaired in schizophrenia. The aim of this study was to extend the current knowledge of the relationship between social cognition and neurocognition in individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) of developing psychosis by examining, in a large sample, the associations between a wide range of neurocognitive tasks and social cognition. Participants included 136 young people at CHR. Specific domains within neurocognition and social cognition were compared using Spearman correlations. Results showed that poor theory of mind correlated with low ratings on a wide range of neurocognitive tasks. Facial affect was more often associated with low ratings on spatial working memory and attention. These results support a link between neurocognition and social cognition even at this early stage of potential psychosis, with indication that poorer performance on social cognition may be associated with deficits in attention and working memory. Understanding these early associations may have implications for early intervention.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry ResearchSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207