Treatment History of Youth At-Risk for Serious Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe treatment history including medications, psychosocial therapy and hospital visits of participants in the Canadian Psychiatric Risk and Outcomes Study (PROCAN). METHODS: PROCAN is a 2-site study of 243 youth/young adults aged 12 to 25 y, categorized into 4 groups: healthy controls ( n = 42), stage 0 (non-help seeking, asymptomatic with risk mainly family history of serious mental illness (SMI); n = 41), stage 1a (distress disorders; n = 52) and stage 1b (attenuated syndromes; n = 108). Participants were interviewed regarding lifetime and current treatments, including medications, psychosocial therapies and hospital visits. RESULTS: The number receiving baseline medications differed significantly across groups ( P < 0.001): 0% healthy controls, 14.6% stage 0, 32.7% stage 1a and 34.3% stage 1b. Further, 26.9% and 49.1% of stage 1a and stage 1b participants received psychosocial therapy at baseline, indicative of statistically significant differences among the groups ( P < 0.001). Similar results were observed for lifetime treatment history; stage 1b participants had the highest frequency of lifetime treatment. Medications started in adulthood (>18 y of age) were the most common for initiation of treatment compared to childhood (0 to 12 y) and adolescence (13 to 17 y) for stage 1a and 1b participants. Lifetime mental health hospital visits differed significantly across groups ( P < 0.001) and were most common in stage 1b participants (29.6%) followed by stage 1a (13.5%), stage 0 (4.9%) and healthy controls (2.4%). CONCLUSION: We found that treatment history for participants in the PROCAN study differed among the at-risk groups. Future initiatives focused on determining the effects of treatment history on SMI are warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".