Long-term course and outcome in schizophrenia: a 34-year follow-up study in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to extend an earlier retrospective cohort study of schizophrenia via a prospective study to a follow-up of 34 years, with an emphasis on describing the life-course of the illness. METHOD: Subjects were 128 first-ever admissions for schizophrenia in 1963 to either of two mental hospital in Alberta, Canada. Follow-up continued until death or 1997. A symptom severity scale, with scores ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 3 (hospitalized), was used to collect time-series data on each subject and create life-course curves. Indices were constructed to summarize the information in each curve. Information on social functioning was also collected. RESULTS: Results were similar for men and women. The life-course curves showed marked variability of symptom severity across subjects and over time. The average score over the entire period of follow-up for the cohort indicated 'moderate' symptoms, and the change in average score from beginning to end of follow-up demonstrated a slight worsening of symptoms. The measures of social functioning indicated that only about one quarter of the patients had a good to excellent outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term course in schizophrenia is one of varying symptom severity, and for many patients, there is a poor overall outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".