Prevalence and Incidence Studies of Schizophrenic Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present the results of a systematic review of the literature published between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2000, that reports findings on the prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia and related disorders. METHOD: We conducted a literature search of schizophrenia-related epidemiological studies, using Medline and HealthSTAR databases and canvassing English-language publications. We used a set of predetermined inclusion-exclusion criteria to identify relevant studies. Eligible publications were restricted to age ranges of 18 years and over for prevalence studies and 15 years and over for incidence studies. Prevalence and incidence data were extracted and analyzed for heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 18 prevalence and 8 incidence studies met eligibility criteria for the review. Heterogeneity analysis revealed significant differences across 1-year and lifetime prevalence and 1-year incidence of schizophrenia. The corresponding pooled rates were: 0.34 per 100, 0.55 per 100, and 11.1 per 100,000, respectively; the variation in rates between studies was generally between 2- and 5-fold. CONCLUSIONS: Although we restricted this review to studies using rigorous and relatively homogeneous methods, there remains significant heterogeneity of prevalence and incidence rates. This strengthens support for the hypothesis that there is real variation in the distribution of schizophrenia around the world. Health planners need to have local data on schizophrenia rates to improve the accuracy of their interventions, while clinicians and researchers need to continue to investigate the etiology of this variation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".