MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794470217 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sby015.252

O9.8. STRESS AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION AMONG INDIVIDUALS AT CLINICAL HIGH-RISK FOR PSYCHOSIS: FINDINGS FROM THE NAPLS COHORT

2018· article· en· W2794470217 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis E. Cullen, Kristin S. Cadenhead, Jean Addington, Carrie E. Bearden, Tyrone D. Cannon, Barbara A. Cornblatt, Daniel H. Mathalon, Thomas H. McGlashan, Diana O. Perkins, Larry J. Seidman, William S. Stone, Ming T. Tsuang, Scott W. Woods, Elaine F. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProdromePsychologyClinical psychologyCognitionDistressPsychosisStressorSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accumulated evidence from non-human animal studies suggests that the prominent deficits in memory and executive function that characterise individuals with psychosis may, at least in part, be due to the effects of stress on the brain regions that support these functions. However, studies of patients with established psychosis have yielded inconsistent findings with regards to the relationship between stress and cognition, and research in high-risk populations is notably lacking. Utilising data from the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study 2 (NAPLS 2), we aimed to further elucidate the relationship between stress (daily stressors, life events, and childhood trauma) and cognitive function in clinical high-risk (CHR) individuals and healthy controls (HC). We additionally explored the role of potential mediators [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function] and moderators (group status, sex, family history of illness). The sample comprised 885 participants (CHR=646; HC=239) who completed measures of stress and cognitive function at the NAPLS 2 baseline assessment. Stress measures included the Daily Stress Inventory and a modified version of the Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Interview Life Events Scale, both of which provided continuous measures of stress exposure (number of events) and distress (subjective feelings of distress). Participants were also interviewed using the Childhood Trauma and Abuse Scale to determine any exposure to childhood trauma (abuse, neglect, and bullying occurring prior to age 16 years). Basal HPA axis activity was determined via salivary cortisol samples obtained at the baseline assessment and standardised scores from selected subtests from the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) were used to derive two cognitive domain scores (memory and executive function). To examine relationships between stress and cognitive domain scores, linear regression analyses were performed on standardised variables. Daily stressor exposure, daily stressor distress, and life event exposure exhibited negative quadratic (i.e., inverted U-shaped) associations with both memory and executive function (P < 0.01 for all). In contrast, the reverse pattern (i.e., a negative linear relationship and a positive quadratic relationship) was shown in the model for life event distress and memory domain scores (P < 0.01) whilst trauma history showed only a trend-level association with poorer memory performance (P = 0.084). These relationships, which did not differ across CHR and healthy control groups, were largely unchanged after adjusting for demographic factors and salivary cortisol. Exploratory analyses suggested that trauma exposure and a family history of psychosis may moderate the relationship between daily stressors/life events and cognitive function. In this large sample of predominately CHR individuals, we observed that the association between stress and cognition is complex and differs across stressor types. The negative quadratic associations that we observed for daily stressor exposure, daily stressor distress, and life event exposure imply that whist lower levels of stress may facilitate memory and executive function, there may be a negative impact on cognition when these stressors become more frequent and distressing. Interventions aiming to minimise stress exposure and promote effective coping strategies might feasibly improve cognition in CHR individuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207