Poor social and interpersonal functioning prior to diagnosis predicts poor outcome for people with first episode psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addington J, Addington D. Patterns of premorbid functioning in first episode psychosis: relationship to 2-year outcome. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005;112:40–6.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Does poor social, interpersonal, school, and work functioning before diagnosis predict outcome for people with a first episode of psychosis? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: Prospective cohort study. ### ![Graphic][6] Setting: Calgary Early Psychosis Program, Calgary, Canada. ### ![Graphic][7] Population: 194 people with first episode psychosis (DSM-IV; mean age 24 years; 30% women. Exclusions: non-English speaking.) ### ![Graphic][8] Prognostic factors: Functioning prior to psychosis was assessed using the Premorbid Assessment Scale (PAS). Positive and negative symptoms of psychosis (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), social functioning (Quality of Life Scale), and substance abuse (Case Managing Rating Scale for Substance Use) were assessed at base line, 1, and 2 years. K-means cluster analysis was used to identify four patterns of premorbid function (stable-good, stable-intermediate, poor-deteriorating, and … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DActa%2Bpsychiatrica%2BScandinavica%26rft.stitle%253DActa%2BPsychiatr%2BScand%26rft.aulast%253DAddington%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D112%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D40%26rft.epage%253D46%26rft.atitle%253DPatterns%2Bof%2Bpremorbid%2Bfunctioning%2Bin%2Bfirst%2Bepisode%2Bpsychosis%253A%2Brelationship%2Bto%2B2-year%2Boutcome.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fj.1600-0447.2005.00511.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15952944%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00511.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15952944&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F9%2F1%2F5.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000229634500006&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".