Remission in Schizophrenia: Critical and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, the Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group published consensus criteria to define remission. These criteria have been widely accepted and utilized and have provided further insights about schizophrenia management and prognosis. We systematically reviewed studies that utilized these criteria, with the aim of assessing the remission rate in follow-up studies and the variables predicting or associated with remission. Remission has a reported rate of 17% to 78% (weighted mean = 35.6%) in first-episode schizophrenia and 16% to 62% (weighted mean = 37%) in multiple-episode patients, with no statistical difference between the two weighted means (p = .79). Patients who were treated with long-acting injectable risperidone showed high maintenance of remission status. Studies comparing second-generation antipsychotics versus haloperidol showed higher remission rates for the former. The variables most frequently associated with remission were better premorbid function, milder symptoms at baseline (especially negative symptoms), early response to treatment, and shorter duration of untreated psychosis. Variability in the length and frequency of follow-ups, as well as differences in dropout rates, could partially explain the differences in reported rates. Rates of symptomatic remission exceeded reported rates for functional recovery. Moreover, the majority of studies used Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group severity criteria only, neglecting duration. To enhance comparison between future research findings, we suggest further specifiers of the working group's criteria, to better define frequency and duration of follow-up, and proxy measures of remission.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".