Self reported symptoms in children predicted schizophreniform disorder as adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poulton R, Caspi A, Moffitt TE , et al. Children's self-reported psychotic symptoms and adult schizophreniform disorder: a 15-year longitudinal study. Arch Gen Psychiatry2000 Nov; 57 : 1053 –8 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Can self reported symptoms of schizophrenia at 11 years of age predict the risk for schizophreniform disorder at 26 years of age? Population based cohort study with 15 years of follow up. Dunedin, New Zealand. 761 of 789 participants (52% boys) were interviewed at 11 and 26 years of age. Exclusion criterion was absence of interviews at both ages. Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-C) was used to assess 5 psychotic symptoms in children. Items were scored by the psychiatrist (0, no; 1, yes, likely; and 2, yes, definitely) and summed to obtain a total score (no symptoms, score of 0; weak symptoms, score of 1; strong symptoms, score ≥2). Adult psychopathology was assessed using … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BGeneral%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BGen%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DPoulton%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%26rft.volume%253D57%26rft.issue%253D11%26rft.spage%253D1053%26rft.epage%253D1058%26rft.atitle%253DChildren%2527s%2BSelf-Reported%2BPsychotic%2BSymptoms%2Band%2BAdult%2BSchizophreniform%2BDisorder%253A%2BA%2B15-Year%2BLongitudinal%2BStudy%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchpsyc.57.11.1053%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11074871%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpsyc.57.11.1053&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11074871&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F4%2F3%2F95.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165055700005&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".