Clinical psychopathology in youth at familial high risk for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: While the course of psychopathology has been explored from an index mental health diagnosis onwards, there are few detailed, prospective studies of the occurrence of clinical psychopathology in youth with familial risk for severe mental illnesses such as psychosis. We sought to describe the appearance of Axis I psychopathology in a unique sample of adolescents with a family history of schizophrenia (FHR). METHODS: One hundred and sixty two first- and second-degree relatives (mean age 15.7 ± 3.6; range 8-25) of probands with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were assessed at baseline and annual intervals for up to 3 years, focusing on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) Axis I psychopathology. RESULTS: Fourteen individuals (8.6%) developed a psychotic disorder. One hundred and five subjects (65%) met criteria for an Axis I disorder over the course of the study, the most common of which was a depressive episode (40 subjects; 25%). Of the 148 individuals who did not develop psychosis, 91 (61%) had one or more Axis I disorders compared with 10/14 converters who had a comorbid Axis I disorder (71%). Ordered by increasing age of onset, diagnoses included cognitive and externalizing disorders, anxiety disorders, affective disorders, substance use disorders and psychotic disorders. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to an elevated risk of psychosis, young FHR relatives manifest a broad range of non-psychotic Axis I psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. This breadth of diagnoses has implications for the structure and function of mental health services for young people.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".