MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601044077 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx023.117

SA121. Links Between Different Areas of Functioning, Social Anxiety, and Theory of Mind in Recent-Onset Schizophrenia

2017· article· en· W2601044077 on OpenAlexaff
Amélie M. Achim, Andréanne Huot

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologySocial anxietyAnxietyTheory of mindClinical psychologyCognitionSocial functioningSocial cognitionAssociation (psychology)PsychiatrySocial skillsSocial cognitive theoryDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistDistress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Functional recovery is now a recognized treatment goal for schizophrenia. It is therefore important to better understand the cognitive and psychological factors that influence functioning and their interrelations. Among these factors, social cognition deficits and comorbid social anxiety are common in schizophrenia and have been separately linked to greater impairments in functioning. In a previous study, we observed that theory of mind (ToM) was the aspect of social cognition that showed the greatest association with functioning in recent-onset schizophrenia. Contrary to our expectations, patients with or without social anxiety showed similar ToM performance and similar levels of functioning as assessed with the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS). Since the SOFAS provides a single, global score, we aimed to refine our previous results by exploring the relationships with distinct areas of functioning rated with the Schizophrenia Objective Functioning Instrument (SOFI). Methods: Fifty-six outpatients with recent-onset schizophrenia (mean illness duration = 21.2 months) had undergone a detailed interview that covered several aspects of their functioning. The records from these interviews were used to rate the 4 SOFI subscales, including (1) living situation, (2) instrumental activities of daily living, (3) productive activities and role functioning, and (4) social/recreational functioning. These ratings were compared between patients with (N = 27) or without (N = 29) a comorbid social anxiety disorder, and we also examined the link with ToM performance assessed with the Combined Stories Task. Results: No group difference emerged between patients with or without social anxiety on the 4 SOFI subscales (all Ps >. 30). As for the link with ToM, a significant correlation was observed with productive activities and role functioning (r = .31, P = .02). The other correlations did not reach significance (P values between .08 and .72). Conclusion: Previous studies reported poorer functioning in schizophrenia patients who also present with social anxiety, and the failure to replicate these results triggers questions regarding the factors at play. Here, we show that it was not our global measure of functioning that prevented us from observing an effect in our initial study. Another possibility is that differences in functioning are more specifically observed in more chronic patients or that some measures of functioning are more sensitive to the negative self-perception often linked with social anxiety. As for the link with ToM, the significant association only with productive activities and role functioning suggests that certain types of social interactions may be particularly affected by ToM deficits. We recently observed that ToM is linked to facilitation of social interactions when performing a collaborative task with another person, which could be particularly important in a work context.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207