Preserved, deteriorated, and premorbidly impaired patterns of intellectual ability in schizophrenia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this investigation was to identify patterns of intellectual performance in schizophrenia patients suggesting preserved, deteriorated, and premorbidly impaired ability, and to determine clinical, cognitive, and functional correlates of these patterns. METHOD: We assessed 101 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and 80 non-psychiatric control participants. The "preserved" performance pattern was defined by average-range estimated premorbid and current IQ with no evidence of decline (premorbid-current IQ difference <10 points). The "deteriorated" pattern was defined by a difference between estimated premorbid and current IQ estimates of 10 points or more. The premorbidly "impaired" pattern was defined by below average estimated premorbid and current IQ and no evidence of decline greater than 10 points. Preserved and deteriorated patterns in healthy controls were also identified and studied in comparison to patient findings. The groups were compared on demographic, neurocognitive, clinical and functionality variables. RESULTS: Patients with the preserved pattern outperformed those meeting criteria for deteriorated and compromised intellectual ability on a composite measure of neurocognitive ability as well as in terms of functional competence. Patients demonstrating the deteriorated and compromised patterns were equivalent across all measures. However, "preserved" patients failed to show any advantage in terms of community functioning and demonstrated cognitive impairments relative to control participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that proposed patterns of intellectual decline and stability exist in both the schizophrenia and general populations, but may not hold true across other cognitive abilities and do not translate into differential functional outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".