Between-site reliability of startle prepulse inhibition across two early psychosis consortia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prepulse inhibition (PPI) and reactivity of the acoustic startle response are widely used biobehavioral markers in psychopathology research. Previous studies have demonstrated that PPI and startle reactivity exhibit substantial within-site stability; however, between-site stability has not been established. In two separate consortia investigating biomarkers of early psychosis, traveling participants studies were carried out as a part of quality assurance procedures to assess the fidelity of data across sites. In the North American Prodromal Longitudinal Studies (NAPLS) consortium, eight normal participants traveled to each of the eight NAPLS sites and were tested twice at each site on the startle PPI paradigm. In preparation for a binational study, 10 healthy participants were assessed twice in both San Diego and Mexico City. Intraclass correlations between and within sites were significant for PPI and startle response parameters, confirming the reliability of startle measures across sites in both consortia. There were between-site differences in startle magnitude in the NAPLS study that did not appear to be related to methods or equipment. In planning multisite studies, it is essential to institute quality assurance procedures early and establish between-site reliability to assure comparable data across sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".