MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600166687 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx021.119

80. Auditory Target Processing Deficits in Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis

2017· article· en· W2600166687 on OpenAlexaff
Holly Hamilton, Peter Bachman, Ayşenil Belger, Ricardo E. Carrión, Erica Duncan, Jason Johannesen, Gregory A. Light, Margaret Niznikiewicz, Brian J. Roach, Jean Addington, Carrie E. Bearden, Kristin S. Cadenhead, Tyrone D. Cannon, Barbara A. Cornblatt, Thomas McGlashan, Diana O. Perkins, Larry J. Seidman, Ming T. Tsuang, Elaine F. Walker, Scott W. Woods, Daniel H. Mathalon

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsP3bP3aPsychosisEvent-related potentialPsychologyAudiologyOddball paradigmProdromeSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)ElectroencephalographyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Reductions in the auditory P300 event-related potential (ERP) component are well established in schizophrenia and reflect early attention-mediated auditory processing deficits. Two subcomponents of P300 are evident depending on oddball task conditions; P3b is elicited by infrequent target stimuli and reflects top-down attention allocation, whereas P3a is elicited by infrequent non-target novel distractor stimuli and reflects bottom-up orienting of attention. The present study examined whether auditory P300 abnormalities precede illness onset and are associated with future clinical status by assessing both target P3b and novel P3a in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) and healthy controls (HC) collected as part of the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study. Methods: CHR (n = 552) and HC (n = 235) participants completed baseline EEG recording during an auditory oddball task. CHR participants were further categorized by clinical status after 24 months of study participation (n = 298) and included a subgroup who transitioned to psychosis (CHR-Transition; n = 73), a subgroup who did not transition but remained symptomatic (CHR-Symptomatic; n = 135), and a subgroup who did not transition and was in symptom remission (CHR-Remission; n = 90). Results: CHR participants had reduced target P3b and novel P3a amplitudes relative to HC (Ps < .001). There was also an effect of 24-month clinical status group on both P3b and P3a amplitudes (P < .001 and P = .006, respectively). Planned contrasts revealed that compared to HC, CHR participants had smaller target P3b amplitudes at baseline (P < .001). In addition, CHR-Transition participants had attenuated P3b amplitudes at baseline relative to all CHR participants who did not transition to psychosis (P = .037). Furthermore, both CHR-Transition and CHR-Symptomatic had smaller P3b amplitudes than both HC (Ps < .001) and CHR-Remission (P = .003 and P = .005, respectively), while P3b of CHR-Remission did not differ from HC at baseline (P > .05). In contrast, although CHR participants also had smaller novel P3a amplitudes than HC at baseline (P < .001), P3a did not differentiate CHR-Transition participants from CHR participants who did not transition within 24 months (P > .05). Despite CHR-Transition and CHR-Symptomatic having smaller P3a amplitudes than HC (P = .028 and P = .002, respectively), they did not differ from CHR-Remission (Ps > .05) at baseline. Moreover, target P3b predicted the time to psychosis onset in CHR participants over and above novel P3a amplitude (P = .024). Conclusion: Both target P3b and novel P3a are reduced in individuals identified to be at risk for developing a psychotic disorder, and P3b in particular appears sensitive to future transition to psychosis. Given this association with clinical outcomes, results implicate target P3b as a neurophysiological vulnerability marker for psychosis.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207