First‐episode affective psychosis and lipid monitoring: survival analysis of the first abnormal lipid test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to assess the probability of developing a lipid test abnormality over time, among first-time users of antipsychotic medications with affective psychosis. METHODS: Survival analysis was used to analyse data from an early intervention in psychosis programme for the first 53 consecutive and eligible cases of patients between the ages of 14 and 40 years who had a diagnosis of affective psychosis. Data on initiation of antipsychotic medications and lipid laboratory test results were abstracted from chart reviews. RESULTS: Within the first 18 months of receiving antipsychotic medications, the probability of surviving without an abnormal lipid test was only 25% (confidence interval 95%: 13.1%, 40.4%). The median time to the development of an abnormal test was 8 months for males and 12 months for females (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Additional studies are needed to document the incidence over time of abnormal lipid tests to inform clinicians about the optimal frequency of monitoring.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".