MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151330334 · doi:10.4088/jcp.14m09128

Determinants of Patient-Rated and Clinician-Rated Illness Severity in Schizophrenia

2014· article· en· W2151330334 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gagan Fervaha, Hiroyoshi Takeuchi, Ofer Agid, Jimmy Lee, George Foussias, Gary Remington

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)NeurocognitivePositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleSeverity of illnessGlobal Assessment of FunctioningPsychiatryDepression (economics)MedicineQuality of life (healthcare)AnxietyIllness severityClinical psychologyPsychological interventionBrief Psychiatric Rating ScaleScale for the Assessment of Negative SymptomsPsychologyCognitionPsychosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The contribution of specific symptoms on ratings of global illness severity in patients with schizophrenia is not well understood. The present study examined the clinical determinants of clinician and patient ratings of overall illness severity. METHOD: This study included 1,010 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia who participated in the baseline visit of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study conducted between January 2001 and December 2004 and who had available symptom severity, side effect burden, cognition, and community functioning data. Both clinicians and patients completed the 7-point Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S), the primary measure of interest in the present study. Symptoms were rated using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, and functional status with the Quality of Life Scale. Neurocognition, insight, and medication-related side effects were also evaluated. RESULTS: Clinicians rated illness severity significantly higher than patients (P < .001). There was moderate overlap between CGI-S ratings made by clinicians and patients, with almost one third of patients showing substantial (ie, greater than 1 point) discrepancies with clinician ratings. Clinician-rated CGI-S scores were most strongly associated with positive symptoms, with additional independent contributions made by negative, disorganized, and depressive symptoms, as well as functional outcome (all P values < .01). Patient-rated CGI-S scores, on the other hand, were most closely related to depressive symptoms, with additional independent contributions made by positive and anxiety symptoms, clinical insight, and neurocognition (all P values < .01). Depressive symptoms were the strongest predictor of patient-rated CGI-S scores even in patients with good clinical insight (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient and clinician views of overall illness severity are not necessarily interchangeable and differ in their clinical correlates. Taking these differences into account may enhance patient engagement in care and improve outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00014001.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207