MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811133535 · doi:10.15173/ijrr.v1i2.3492

Neurocognitive predictors of confabulation in Schizophrenia

2018· article· en· W2811133535 on OpenAlexaff
Kyrsten M. Grimes, Konstantine K. Zakzanis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Risk and Recovery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfabulation (neural networks)PsychologyNeurocognitiveSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsycINFOClinical psychologyNeuropsychologyPsychiatryCognitionMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Confabulations, or false memories, are observed in various disorders, including schizophrenia. In forensic psychiatric assessment, this is problematic, particularly when garnering a clinical history and detailed account of the index offense(s) from the individual being charged. This study sought to quantitatively synthesize the existing literature regarding the frequency of confabulations in schizophrenia and its neurocognitive correlates. The keywords “schizophrenia” and “psychosis” were systematically canvassed in combination with “confabulation,” “false memory,” and “false memories” on PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria included the following: (1) Participant samples that included the patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls; (2) commercially available neuropsychological test measures were employed (i.e., no experimental paradigms were considered); (3) quantitative data (i.e., means and standard deviations) was available so that an effect size could be computed; (4) published findings in peer-reviewed academic journals and written in English. Studies examining high-risk or first-episode psychosis groups were excluded. Five studies were included in the final analysis. Effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d were calculated for number of confabulations made. When available, the correlations between confabulation and neurocognitive variables were recorded. The findings suggest that patients with schizophrenia confabulated more than healthy controls for new information if it was related to old information. The relationship between confabulations and neurocognitive variables was inconsistent. Together, the results from this quantitative review has important implications for interviewing techniques in forensic psychiatric assessment. Specifically, the assessor should take great care not to ask leading questions or introduce unverified, contextual information into the interview, as it may result in a confabulation, rather than a more accurate account of the event.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Risk and RecoverySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207