MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602465954 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx021.138

100. Converging Evidence for Social Functioning Deficits as a Neurodevelopmental Risk Factor in High-Risk Youth

2017· article· en· W2602465954 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea M. Auther, Ricardo E. Carrión, Danielle McLaughlin, Jean Addington, Carrie E. Bearden, Kristin S. Cadenhead, Tyrone D. Cannon, Daniel H. Mathalon, Thomas H. McGlashan, Diana O. Perkins, Larry J. Seidman, Ming T. Tsuang, Elaine F. Walker, Scott W. Woods, Barbara A. Cornblatt

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProdromePsychologyPsychosisSocial functioningClinical psychologyPsychiatryDistress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Social functioning deficits are present prior to the onset of psychosis and predict psychosis conversion in high-risk youth (Cornblatt et al, 2015; Cannon et al, 2008). In addition, past research from the Recognition and Prevention (RAP) Program found that social skill deficits are lifelong traits related to poor functional outcome in general (Cornblatt et al, 2015; Carrion et al, 2013). This poster reassesses the implications of social skill deficits as a developmental trait by examining change in social functioning. Methods: Subjects include 88 clinical high risk (CHR) participants enrolled in Phase 1 of the RAP Program and 347 CHR participants enrolled in the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study 2 (NAPLS2). Social functioning deficits were assessed with the Global Functioning: Social (GF:S) scale, an interview measure of social interactions rated from 1–10 with higher scores indicating better functioning (Cornblatt et al, 2007). Associations between GF:S scores and baseline demographics, SIPS attenuated positive and negative symptoms, and Axis I diagnoses were examined. Conversion to psychosis and functional outcome were assessed at follow up (RAP = 3 years, NAPLS2 = 2 years). CHR participants were divided according to whether their GF:S score improved, did not change, or declined over follow up. GF:S scores were also dichotomized into Good (GF:S ≥ 7) vs Poor (GF:S ≤ 6) functioning at baseline and follow up. Results: For the RAP sample, there were no significant differences between groups on demographic variables or SIPS symptoms. The Improver and No Change groups were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with Social Phobia compared to Decliners (Ps < .01). Similar results were found in the larger NAPLS2 sample for demographic variables, SIPS symptoms, and Axis I diagnoses (all ns). Significantly more Decliners in both samples converted to psychosis (RAP 32%, NAPLS2 36%) compared to the Improvers (RAP 10.5%, NAPLS2 10%; Ps ≤ .03). Decliners were also more likely to convert than the No Change (8%) group (RAP, P = .03; NAPLS, trend). In addition, No Change subjects were more likely to have poor functioning at baseline and outcome (RAP 72%, NAPLS2 51%). Conclusion: As expected, CHRs with decline in social functioning are at greatest risk for psychosis. In contrast, CHRs who improve over time are likely not at risk for either psychosis or functional disability. The remaining subjects display stable poor functioning, but are less likely to develop psychosis, suggesting their risk is for long term functional disability. Only one clinical variable, Social Phobia, differentiated groups, indicating that social anxiety is more likely found in false positives. These findings have two major implications: (1) stable social skill deficits appear to relate to long-term disability and (2) change in adolescence is predictive of 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.240 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207