Formal thought disorder in people at ultra-high risk of psychosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Formal thought disorder is a cardinal feature of psychosis. However, the extent to which formal thought disorder is evident in ultra-high-risk individuals and whether it is linked to the progression to psychosis remains unclear. AIMS: Examine the severity of formal thought disorder in ultra-high-risk participants and its association with future psychosis. METHOD: The Thought and Language Index (TLI) was used to assess 24 ultra-high-risk participants, 16 people with first-episode psychosis and 13 healthy controls. Ultra-high-risk individuals were followed up for a mean duration of 7 years (s.d.=1.5) to determine the relationship between formal thought disorder at baseline and transition to psychosis. RESULTS: =0.04; ES=1.04). CONCLUSIONS: TLI is beneficial in evaluating formal thought disorder in ultra-high-risk participants, and complements existing instruments for the evaluation of psychopathology in this group. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it