MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598304402 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx021.270

192. Different Age-Related Trajectories of Social Cognition in Youths at Clinical High Risk of Psychosis

2017· article· en· W2598304402 on OpenAlexaff
Charles A. Davidson, Danijela Piškulić, Jean Addington, Kristen S. Cadenhead, Tyrone D. Cannon, Barbara A. Cornblatt, Tom McGlashan, Diana O. Perkins, Larry J. Seidman, Ming T. Tsuang, Elaine F. Walker, Carrie E. Bearden, Daniel H. Mathalon, Scott W. Woods, Jason Johannesen

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionTheory of mindDevelopmental psychologyPsychosisSocial cognitionPerceptionSocial cognitive theoryEmotion perceptionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Social skills develop along with metacognitive abilities from early childhood through young adulthood. Impairment in metacognitive and other social cognitive abilities may contribute to poorer social function in clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) adolescents. However, it is unclear whether social cognitive impairment represents developmental delay in skill acquisition or, rather, a consequence of emerging symptoms. Furthermore, it is unknown how early pharmacotherapy could influence this developmental trajectory. This study examined the hypotheses that (1) age-related trajectories of social cognition differ between CHR and normally developing youth and (2) age-related trajectories are partially explained by history of symptoms and psychotropic medication. Methods: Emotion perception, social perception, and theory of mind abilities were assessed in 675 CHR and 264 age-matched healthy comparison (HC) participants aged 12–35 (average = 19.0 ± 4.5 years). Linear and nonlinear curves were fit to relationships between social cognitive variables and age. Differences in age effects between CHR and HC were modeled as interaction terms. Duration of a prodromal syndrome prior to baseline and medication history were tested for interactions with age effects. Results: Emotion perception and social perception age trajectories did not differ by group. Theory of mind age trajectory, particularly for sarcasm items, had a lower slope for CHR than HC. CHR diverged from HC from mid-adolescence onward (starting to differ between approximately ages 15 and 17.5), with a minimum observation window of 4 years required to detect correlations with age. Age trajectory for theory of mind was unrelated to the presence or duration of a prior prodromal syndrome but did interact with medication history, wherein participants with an antipsychotic or antidepressant medication history did not differ from HCs. Only antipsychotic- and antidepressant-naive CHR participants showed a smaller slope for theory of mind, with differences from HC increasing with advanced age. Conclusion: In the current study, all social cognitive abilities increased during adolescence, but development of theory of mind appeared blunted for CHR participants starting in mid-adolescence. This difference, however, was only true for participants without an antipsychotic or antidepressant medication history, which could suggest benefits of early treatment or subgroups within CHR for whom social cognition is affected differently. These cross-sectional results require longitudinal replication and further inquiry into the relationships between treatment history and social cognitive development. Current results suggest that factors related to risk for psychosis may moderate adolescent social development, and that interventions targeting social cognition may be particularly helpful at this stage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207