MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065672196 · doi:10.1016/s0924-9338(14)78171-4

EPA-0831 – Prevalence of at-risk criteria of psychosis in the swiss general population between 8 and 40 years.

2014· article· en· W2065672196 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benno G. Schimmelmann, C. Michel, Stefanie J. Schmidt, Frauke Schultze‐Lutter

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationPsychosisPsychologyYoung adultProdromePsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Telephone interviewQuarter (Canadian coin)PediatricsMedicineClinical psychologyDemographyDevelopmental psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence and pathological value of attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) and other at-risk criteria in general population the age range of highest risk of (beginning) psychosis, when assessed in the same way as in help-seeking persons, is still unclear. In 2 complimentary studies, we studied the 3-month prevalence of ultra-high risk and basic symptom at-risk criteria assessed with the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS) and the Schizophrenia Proneness Instrument, Adult version (SPI-A) in random Swiss general population samples of 8–17 years and 16–40 years. Children and adolescents were assessed in a face-to-face, young adults in a telephone interview by trained clinical psychologists. Exclusion criteria were communication problems andl ife-time psychosis. 1’229 interviews with young adults and 55 interviews with children and adolescents were completed. While 2.8% of the young adults acknowledged the presence of any one at-risk criterion within the last 3 months, 9.1% of the children and adolescents did so. An age-related difference was also found in the prevalence of at least 1 lifetime at-risk phenomenon: 25.2% in young adults and 45.5% in children and adolescents. While at-risk phenomena occur in a quarter of young adults of the general population and even in nearly half of the children and adolescents at least temporarily, only a minority reports sufficient recency, frequency or change in severity of these phenomena to meet present at-risk criteria according to SIPS and SPI-A. This highlights the importance of the recency, frequency or behavior-/conviction-related change-in-severity criteria included in the at-risk criteria.

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)0.000
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207