Duration of untreated psychosis and its relationship to clinical outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A major reason for interest in early intervention for psychotic disorders is the hypothesised relationship between longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) and poorer outcome of treatment. AIMS: To critically examine the evidence concerning DUP being related to treatment outcome and possible mediators of any such relationship. METHOD: A systematic review of studies in which DUP is assessed and its relationship to treatment outcome is examined. In addition, studies relevant to possible neurotoxic effects of DUP were reviewed. RESULTS: The research is entirely of a correlational nature and, therefore, firm conclusions regarding causation are not possible. There is, however, substantial evidence of DUP being an independent predictor of treatment outcome, particularly remission of positive symptoms, over the first year or so of treatment. Findings regarding the possible neurotoxic effects of DUP are inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be evidence consistent with DUP influencing aspects of treatment outcome. Non-correlational studies, such as quasi-experimental designs, could provide stronger evidence regarding causality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".