P03-132 - Redefining Outcome Measures in Schizophrenia: Integrating Social & Clinical Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenia is a complex neurobehavioral disorder for which there are many promising new treatments. There is, however, a discrepancy in outcome measure reports when obtained from patients, relatives, caregivers, or professionals making it difficult to determine the level of recovery in patients. The reason for the lack of agreement may be due to the limitations of the measurement tools themselves, which are not comprehensive and may measure different aspects of outcome. Alternatively, it could be that the conceptual understanding of outcome and in turn recovery requires development. Unfortunately for one of the above reasons or both, patients assessed as “recovered” remain excluded from mainstream society. We are of the opinion that this is the case because present outcome measures do not capture real-life situations. We propose that the concept of recovery should be carefully defined and that the gold standard of outcome should incorporate social and clinical parameters. We define recovery and discuss remission in full within the body of the paper. In short we propose that within the definition of recovery, personal growth, supportive relationships, and social inclusion should be incorporated. With the new definition the following will be addressed when assessing outcome: 1) Symptom manifestation, 2) Response to treatment, 3) Impact on self & others. We also hope that with a new definition the following three dimensions will be addressable: 1) Clinical remission, 2) Presence of side effects, 3) social outcome. Finally, the reassessment of recovery should be sensitive to culture, be comprehensive, and reliable.
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 | 0.029 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".