Treating young individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Typically, studies investigating those at clinical high risk for psychosis have focused on predictors of conversion and treatments that might prevent conversion to full-blown psychosis. Few studies have followed those who do not go on to develop a psychotic illness. METHODS: Participants were 48 young people who were at risk for developing psychosis based on the Structured Interview for Prodromal Symptoms criteria and participated in a treatment programme where they were offered up to 6 months of psychosocial treatment and psychiatric management. Attenuated psychotic symptoms, negative symptoms, depression, anxiety, social functioning, alcohol and drug use, and meta-cognitive beliefs were assessed at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. Personality characteristics were assessed at baseline. Medication use was tracked and psychiatric visits were logged over the 18-month study period. RESULTS: On average, participants attended 12 sessions of psychosocial treatment and had one meeting with the psychiatrist every 6 months. Only 24% were ever prescribed any psychotropic medications, and antipsychotics were not used. Significant improvements were found over time in attenuated positive symptoms, negative symptoms, depression, anxiety, meta-cognitions and social functioning with most improvement occurring in the first 6 months. There was no change in the level of substance use. For personality assessment, participants generally scored high on neuroticism and openness and had low scores on extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness. CONCLUSION: With minimal treatment and no antipsychotics, young people who present as being at risk for developing a psychotic disorder demonstrate clinical improvement over time. However, a few continued to have the liability of ongoing attenuated psychotic symptoms.
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) | 0.001 | 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".