T74. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND SCHIZOPHRENIA: A META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which poor academic achievement is associated with later schizophrenia is unclear. The aim of the present study was to update our prior meta-analyses which examined academic achievement in youth aged 16 years or younger who later developed schizophrenia or schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) and those who did not (Dickson et al, 2012, Psychological Medicine, 42, 743–755). We also conducted a new meta-analysis on published studies that reported on general academic achievement in youth at-risk for schizophrenia/SSD aged 16 years or younger compared to typically developing youth In addition to the five studies included in our earlier meta-analyses, a further three prospective investigations of birth or genetic high-risk cohorts were identified that reported results using objective measures of general academic achievement and of mathematics achievement for individuals who did and did not develop schizophrenia/SSD in adulthood. For our new meta-analysis we identified a total of seven studies that met the following inclusion criteria: (1) written in English; (2) objective measure of general academic achievement consisting of scores on least two core academic subjects (i.e., literacy and mathematics) at age 16 years or younger; (3) results provided for youth at high risk for developing schizophrenia/SSD in adulthood by virtue of having at least one first-degree relative with the disorder or reporting psychotic like-experiences (PLEs); and (4) sufficient data to calculate effect sizes. Meta-analyses showed that by age 16 years, individuals who later developed schizophrenia/SSD presented with significantly poorer general academic achievement (d=-0.26) and mathematics achievement (d=-0.21). Findings also indicated that during adolescence, youth with a family history of schizophrenia/SSD and youth reporting PLES were characterised by significantly lower general academic achievement than healthy peers (d=-0.39; d=-0.53, respectively). These results show that poor academic achievement precedes illness onset, and may represent an easily identifiable non-specific marker of biological, psychological and social risk processes underpinning the development of schizophrenia/SSD.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.075 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".