Prevalence of nonaffective psychosis in intellectually disabled clients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological studies report high rates of schizophrenia in individuals with intellectual disability (ID). However, this subject has not been reviewed systematically. We aim to review studies that report the prevalence of nonaffective psychosis in a population with ID and estimate the prevalence of schizophrenia in this population. We performed a literature search using the PsychINFO, MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to 2 October 2014). We performed a manual search of citations from relevant papers identified through the databases. We identified 887 titles and after screening abstracts, identified 60 full-text articles. We identified 25 studies with 27 datasets for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The prevalence rate was at least three times higher than the general population. There was a wide variation in the methodology, setting and sample size of the studies. Only one study reported a prevalence rate lower than the general population. The prevalence of psychosis in a population with ID is at least three times higher than that in the general population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it