Cognitive markers of short-term clinical outcome in first-episode psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcome from psychotic disorders is heterogeneous with poorer outcomes frequently identified too late to be influenced. Symptomatic ratings at 1 or more years following initiation of treatment have been related to cognition in first-episode psychosis. However, the relationship between cognition and early outcome remains unclear. AIMS: To determine whether specific cognitive domains could identify poor short-term outcome among individuals with first-episode psychosis. METHOD: One hundred and fifty-one individuals with first-episode psychosis were divided into two groups based on 6-month clinical data after the initiation of treatment. Six cognitive domains were compared among 78 participants with poor outcomes, 73 with good outcomes and 31 healthy controls. RESULTS: Lower performance on verbal memory (z-scores: poor outcome=-1.3 (s.d.=1.1); good outcome=-0.8 (s.d.=0.9); P=0.001) and working memory (poor outcome=-1.0 (s.d.=1.2); good outcome=-0.4 (s.d.=0.9); P=0.003) identified individuals with first-episode psychosis with a poor outcome after 6 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The early identification of those individuals with first-episode psychosis with a poor clinical outcome may encourage clinicians to pay special attention to them in the form of alternative pharmacological and psychological treatments for a more favourable outcome in the long term.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".