Canadian Treatment Guidelines for Individuals at Clinical High Risk of Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Young people who are at clinical high risk (CHR) of developing psychosis are often help seeking and have significant distress and dysfunction. There are limited guidelines for the assessment and treatment for this population. The aim of this guideline was to develop treatment recommendations for this at-risk group. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted for published guidelines for CHR. All current guidelines for schizophrenia were reviewed for treatment guidelines on individuals at CHR. The recommendations adopted were primarily drawn from the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on the early intervention in clinical high-risk states of psychoses and the 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the treatment and management of those at CHR for psychosis. RESULTS: After the guideline development process described, 9 recommendations were developed based on the quality of evidence, appropriateness for the Canadian health care system, and clinical expert consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment by an expert in the field was the first recommendation. It was recommended that treatment follow a staged approach with psychological treatments being the first-line treatment and pharmacotherapy reserved for adults, those who did not respond to psychological interventions, and those who had more severe symptoms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".