MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐report of family functioning and risk for psychotic disorders in male adolescents with behavioural disturbances

2008· article· en· W2071493848 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Weiser, Abraham Reichenberg, Nomi Werbeloff, Efrat Kravitz, Daniel Halpérin, Gadi Lubin, M. Shmushkevitch, Rinat Yoffe, J Addington, Michael Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryVulnerability (computing)PsychologyAffect (linguistics)Clinical psychologyFamily historyHazard ratioMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies indicate that a poor family environment might affect vulnerability for the later manifestation of psychotic illness. The current study aims to examine family functioning prior to the onset of psychosis. METHOD: Subjects were 42,948, 17-year old males with behavioural disturbances who were asked about the functioning of their family by the Israeli Draft Board. Data on later psychiatric hospitalizations were obtained from a National Psychiatric Hospitalization Registry. RESULTS: Poorer self-reported family functioning was associated with greater risk for later hospitalization for psychosis [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.05-1.27], with a trend in the same direction for schizophrenia (adjusted HR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.98-1.24). CONCLUSION: In male adolescents with behavioural disturbances, perceived poorer family functioning is associated with increased risk for non-affective psychotic disorders and schizophrenia. These data do not enable us to determine if perceived familial dysfunction increases vulnerability for psychosis, if premorbid behavioural abnormalities disrupt family life, or neither.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207