MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102989240 · doi:10.1177/070674370404900808

Twenty-Year Course of Schizophrenia: The Madras Longitudinal Study

2004· article· en· W2102989240 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Thara

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryCohortDeveloping countryPsychologyCohort studyLongitudinal studyMedicineDemographyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To follow up 90 first-episode schizophrenia patients after 20 years and to study the course of symptomatology, work, social functioning, and pattern of illness during this period. METHODS: The Present State Examination and the Psychiatric and Personal History Schedule were administered at fixed points during follow-up. The measures adopted to ensure a good follow-up rate (67%) after 20 years under adverse conditions are described. RESULTS: Complete data were obtained from 61 subjects; 16 had died, and 13 could not be traced. After 20 years, 5 patients had recovered completely, and another 5 were continuously ill. Most of the cohort had multiple relapses with or without complete remission between them. The Global Assessment of Functioning Scale showed that symptoms and social functioning in this sample approximated results from developing countries and were much better than those of developed nations. There were not many sex differences. Marriage and occupational rates were higher than those observed in many published reports. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the few long-term follow-up studies from the developing world. It reveals a pattern of course and functioning distinctly better than that found in many such studies from the developed nations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations125
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207