The effect of antipsychotic treatment on Theory of Mind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficits in a patient's 'theory of mind' (TOM) have been proposed to lead to psychosis. However, it remains unclear whether TOM deficits constitute a trait- or a state-related deficit and whether they respond to antipsychotic treatment, and also whether the change in TOM and change in psychosis are associated. METHOD: In the cross-sectional component of this study, 71 patients with psychotic disorders were included and TOM ability was measured using a hinting task in which subjects had to infer real intentions behind indirect speech. In the longitudinal study, a different cohort of 17 drug-free patients were included wherein they received antipsychotic treatment for 6 weeks and the effect on psychotic symptoms and TOM was measured every 2 weeks. Associations between TOM and psychopathology were assessed and a mixed effects model was used to investigate the rate of change over time. RESULTS: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores were significantly associated with TOM scores. The hinting task was not associated with positive symptoms but was significantly associated with negative and general symptoms. The longitudinal arm of the study showed that both PANSS positive scores and TOM improved after medication was started, particularly during the first 2 weeks of antipsychotic treatment, but these changes were not associated. The TOM response at 2 weeks of antipsychotic treatment reached similar values to those obtained in the cross-sectional sample. CONCLUSIONS: Although TOM and psychotic symptoms are related to each other, antipsychotic treatment impacts each independently, suggesting a dissimilar cognitive or neurobiological substrate for the two.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".