MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756555693 · doi:10.1002/wps.20456

Comparing three‐year extension of early intervention service to regular care following two years of early intervention service in first‐episode psychosis: a randomized single blind clinical trial

2017· article· en· W2756555693 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ashok Malla, Ridha Joober, Srividya N. Iyer, Ross Norman, Norbert Schmitz, Thomas G. Brown, Danyael Lutgens, Howard C. Margolese, Nicola Casacalenda, Amal Abdel‐Baki, Éric Latimer, Sally Mustafa, Sherezad Abadi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Psychiatry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreJewish General HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityDouglas CollegeMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)RandomizationPediatricsPsychiatryPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to determine if, following two years of early intervention service for first-episode psychosis, three-year extension of that service was superior to three years of regular care. We conducted a randomized single blind clinical trial using an urn randomization balanced for gender and substance abuse. Participants were recruited from early intervention service clinics in Montreal. Patients (N=220), 18-35 years old, were randomized to an extension of early intervention service (EEIS; N=110) or to regular care (N=110). EEIS included case management, family intervention, cognitive behaviour therapy and crisis intervention, while regular care involved transfer to primary (community health and social services and family physicians) or secondary care (psychiatric outpatient clinics). Cumulative length of positive and negative symptom remission was the primary outcome measure. EEIS patients had a significantly longer mean length of remission of positive symptoms (92.5 vs. 63.6 weeks, t=4.47, p<0.001), negative symptoms (73.4 vs. 59.6 weeks, t=2.84, p=0.005) and both positive and negative symptoms (66.5 vs. 56.7 weeks, t=2.25, p=0.03) compared to regular care patients. EEIS patients stayed in treatment longer than regular care patients (mean 131.7 vs. 105.3 weeks, t=3.98, p<0.001 through contact with physicians; 134.8 ± 37.7 vs. 89.8 ± 55.2, t=6.45, p<0.0001 through contact with other health care providers) and received more units of treatment (mean 74.9 vs. 39.9, t=4.21, p<0.001 from physicians, and 57.3 vs. 28.2, t=4.08, p<0.001 from other health care professionals). Length of treatment had an independent effect on the length of remission of positive symptoms (t=2.62, p=0.009), while number of units of treatment by any health care provider had an effect on length of remission of negative symptoms (t=-2.70, p=0.008) as well as total symptoms (t=-2.40, p=0.02). Post-hoc analysis showed that patients randomized to primary care, based on their better clinical profile at randomization, maintained their better outcome, especially as to remission of negative symptoms, at the end of the study. These data suggest that extending early intervention service for three additional years has a positive impact on length of remission of positive and negative symptoms compared to regular care. This may have policy implications for extending early intervention services beyond the current two years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207