Treatment possibilities for individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to undertake a first step in trying to understand the types of treatments young people at clinical high risk of psychosis are interested in pursuing. METHODS: The sample consisted of 30 young people who were current participants in the ongoing North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS 2) and who met criteria for being at clinical high risk for psychosis. Participants were administered a questionnaire that asked them to identify the types of mental health problems they were currently getting help with or would like to get help with and the types of treatments they thought would be helpful and may be interested in receiving. RESULTS: Results showed that when individuals first began participation in NAPLS, almost half had no expectations for treatment. They wanted help but they did not really know what kind of help to be asking for. Participants had a wide range of concerns for which they wanted help. Although a majority endorsed attenuated positive symptoms as a concern, many other issues such a family and social problems were often identified. For those who were already receiving help, the general opinion was that it was beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that this population sees many different interventions as being potentially helpful. Furthermore, they are open to participating in a variety of treatments, including psychotherapeutic and psychiatric interventions as well as more general treatments addressing a range of possible deficits or difficulties.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".