Signs and Symptoms of Psychotic Illness (SSPI): A rating scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the rating scales commonly used for assessing response to antipsychotic treatment, individual items embrace symptoms that apparently arise from distinguishable pathophysiological processes and might be expected to respond differently to treatment. AIMS: To test the reliability, sensitivity to change and factor structure of a new scale for the assessment of the Signs and Symptoms of Psychotic Illness (the SSPI). METHOD: Interrater reliability was evaluated by determining the intraclass correlation for the ratings of 63 patients. Sensitivity to change was assessed in a longitudinal study of 33 patients. Factor structure was determined from scores for 155 patients. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation was satisfactory for all individual items and excellent for the total score. Scores were sensitive to change. A change in Clinical Global Impression of one unit corresponded to an SSPI total score change of 31%. Factor analysis revealed five clusters of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The SSPI provides a sensitive and reliable measure of the five major clusters of symptoms that occur commonly in psychotic illness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".