Values in First-Episode Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Functional impairment continues to represent a major challenge in schizophrenia. Surprisingly, patients with schizophrenia report a level of happiness comparable with control subjects, even in the face of the prominent functional deficits, a finding at odds with evidence indicating a positive relation between happiness and level of functioning. In attempting to reconcile these findings, we chose to examine the issue of values, defined as affectively infused criteria or motivational goals used to select and justify actions, people, and the self, as values are related to both happiness and functioning. METHODS: Fifty-six first-episode patients in remission and 56 healthy control subjects completed happiness and values measures. Statistical analyses included correlations, analysis of variance, structural equation modelling, and smallest space analysis. RESULTS: Results indicated that patients with schizophrenia placed significantly greater priority on the value dimensions of Tradition (P = 0.02) and Power (P = 0.03), and significantly less priority on Self-direction (P = 0.007) and Stimulation, (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Essentially, people with schizophrenia place more emphasis on the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide in conjunction with a decreased interest in change, which is at odds with the expectations of early adulthood. This value difference could be related to functional deficits. To this point, we have assumed that people hold to the same values that guided them before the illness' onset, but this may not be the case. Our study indicates that values differ in people with schizophrenia, compared with control subjects, even early in the illness and in the face of symptomatic remission.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".