Is the Clinical High-Risk State a Valid Concept? Retrospective Examination in a First-Episode Psychosis Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: One reason for worldwide interest in the clinical high-risk (CHR) state for psychosis is its potential as a target for prevention. However, the feasibility and utility of early intervention initiatives that are focused on this stage involve an untested assumption: that most patients with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) experience earlier CHR symptoms. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize the proportion of FEP patients who had experienced such symptoms prior to the onset of their psychosis. METHODS: Semistructured interviews of 351 patients and families with the Circumstances of Onset and Relapse Schedule were supplemented by chart reviews in a catchment area-based sample of FEP patients. Information was extracted regarding pathways to care and psychiatric and behavioral changes over time. Experts (N=30) working in FEP and CHR settings identified which of 27 early signs and symptoms constitute attenuated positive or subthreshold psychotic symptoms (APSPS) if they appear prior to a syndromal-level psychotic episode. RESULTS: Nine early signs and symptoms were endorsed by the experts as representing APSPS. More than half of consenting patients, and two-thirds (68%) of those who completed all assessments, had experienced at least one such sign or symptom prior to their FEP. The groups with and without APSPS were similar in social, demographic, and clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Most consenting patients with an FEP had experienced previous signs and symptoms consistent with a CHR state prior to the onset of threshold-level psychotic symptoms, although a substantial minority had not. This finding validates the viability of the CHR construct as a potential target for early case identification and preventive and therapeutic interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".