Meta-analyses of cognitive and motor function in youth aged 16 years and younger who subsequently develop schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous reviews have reported cognitive and motor deficits in childhood and adolescence among individuals who later develop schizophrenia. However, these reviews focused exclusively on studies of individuals with affected relatives or on population/birth cohorts, incorporated studies with estimated measures of pre-morbid intelligence, or included investigations that examined symptomatic at-risk participants or participants 18 years or older. Thus, it remains unclear whether cognitive and motor deficits constitute robust antecedents of schizophrenia. Meta-analyses were conducted on published studies that examined cognitive or motor function in youth aged 16 years or younger who later developed schizophrenia or a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) and those who did not. METHOD: Twenty-three studies fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (1) written in English; (2) prospective investigations of birth or genetic high-risk cohorts, or follow-back investigations of population samples; (3) objective measures of cognitive or motor performance at age 16 or younger; (4) results provided for individuals who did and who did not develop schizophrenia/SSD later in life; and (5) sufficient data to calculate effect sizes. Four domains of function were examined: IQ; Motor Function; General Academic Achievement; and Mathematics Achievement. RESULTS: Meta-analyses showed that, by age 16, individuals who subsequently developed schizophrenia/SSD displayed significant deficits in IQ (d=0.51) and motor function (d=0.56), but not in general academic achievement (d=0.25) or mathematics achievement (d=0.21). Subsidiary analysis indicated that the IQ deficit was present by age 13. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that deficits in IQ and motor performance precede the prodrome and the onset of illness.
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 | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".