Current status specifiers for patients at clinical high risk for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Longitudinal studies of the clinical high risk (CHR) syndrome for psychosis have emphasized the conversion vs non-conversion distinction and thus far have not focused intensively on classification among non-converters. The present study proposes a system for classifying CHR outcomes over time when using the Structured Interview for Psychosis-risk Syndromes and evaluates its validity. METHOD: The system for classifying CHR outcomes is referred to as "current status specifiers," with "current" meaning over the month prior to the present evaluation and "specifiers" indicating a set of labels and descriptions of the statuses. Specifiers for four current statuses are described: progression, persistence, partial remission, and full remission. Data from the North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study were employed to test convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the current status distinctions. RESULTS: Validity analyses partly supported current status distinctions. Social and role functioning were more impaired in progressive and persistent than in remitted patients, suggesting a degree of convergent validity. Agreement between CHR current statuses and current statuses for a different diagnostic construct (DSM-IV Major Depression) was poor, suggesting discriminant validity. The proportion converting to psychosis within a year was significantly higher in cases meeting progression criteria than in those meeting persistence criteria and tended to be higher than in those meeting full remission criteria, consistent with a degree of predictive validity. DISCUSSION: CHR syndrome current status specifiers could offer a potentially valid and useful description of current clinical status among non-converters. Study in additional samples is needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".