MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625283736 · doi:10.1111/eip.12431

Outcome in patients converting to psychosis following a treated clinical high risk state

2017· article· en· W2625283736 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashok Malla, Marianne de Bonneville, Jai Shah, Gerald Jordan, Marita Pruessner, Kia Faridi, Mark Rabinovitch, Srividya N. Iyer, Ridha Joober

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Intervention in Psychiatry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSunovionBritish Mycological SocietyAstraZenecaPfizer
KeywordsPsychosisPsychological interventionClozapineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Intervention (counseling)At risk mental statePsychiatryAntipsychoticEarly psychosisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: We explored 2-year outcomes in a sample of clinical high risk (CHR) patients who converted to psychosis despite receiving interventions. METHODS: Of 167 CHR patients, 18 had converted to psychosis and received treatment for their first episode of psychosis in an early intervention service over 2 years. RESULTS: Compared to patients admitted directly to the same early intervention service without having been identified as CHR prior to onset of psychosis, CHR converters were in remission for fewer months (M = 5 vs M = 10); were more likely to be prescribed more than 1 antipsychotic medication (90% vs 68%) and to receive clozapine treatment (38% vs 2%) over 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: CHR patients who convert to psychosis may be inherently more resistant to comprehensive treatment and may have poorer outcomes. Conversion to psychosis from a state of CHR can be reduced to a rate of 10%-12% following interventions, yet outcomes for patients who convert despite such interventions remain unexplored.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.401
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Intervention in PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207