Predictive saccades are impaired in biological nonpsychotic siblings of schizophrenia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although impairments in predictive saccades have been reported in patients with schizophrenia, this has never been explored in their biological relatives. We examined predictive saccades in age-and sex-matched siblings of patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Thirty siblings of schizophrenia patients, 30 healthy matched control subjects and 30 patients with schizophrenia performed a predictive saccades paradigm. Nonanticipated and anticipated saccades were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Compared with control subjects, primary saccades and final eye position were hypometric (they undershot the target) in siblings, as in patients. The proportion of anticipated saccades and latencies did not differ between the 3 groups. The maximum velocity was decreased only in patients. CONCLUSION: Alterations in predictive saccades observed in biological siblings are similar to those seen in patients, although they tend to be of a lesser degree. This finding supports predictive saccades as a valid endophenotypic marker. Further research is necessary to understand the physiopathological value of these disturbances and their link to a visuospatial representation deficit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".