Can youth at high risk of illness progression be identified by measures of rumination and sleep‐wake disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Clinical staging models offer a useful framework for understanding illness trajectories, where individuals are located on a continuum of illness progression from stage 0 (at-risk but asymptomatic) to stage 4 (end-stage disease). Importantly, clinical staging allows investigation of risk factors for illness progression with the potential to target trans-diagnostic mechanisms at an early stage, especially in help-seeking youth who often present with sub-threshold syndromes. While depressive symptoms, rumination and sleep-wake disturbances may worsen syndrome outcomes, the role of these related phenomena has yet to be examined as risk factors for trans-diagnostic illness progression in at-risk youth. METHODS: This study is a prospective follow-up of 248 individuals aged 12 to 25 years presenting to headspace services with sub-threshold syndromes (stage 1) classified under the clinical staging model to determine transition to threshold syndromes (stage 2). Factor analysis of depression, rumination and sleep-wake patterns was used to identify key dimensions and any associations between factors and transition to stage 2 at follow-up. RESULTS: At 1 year, 9% of cases met criteria for stage 2 (n = 22). One of three identified factors, namely the factor reflecting the commonalities shared between rumination and sleep-wake disturbance, significantly differentiated cases that transitioned to stage 2 vs those that did not demonstrate transition. Items loading onto this factor, labelled Anergia, included depression severity and aspects of rumination and sleep-wake disturbance that were characterized as introceptive. CONCLUSIONS: Common dimensions between rumination and sleep-wake disturbance present a detectable trans-diagnostic marker of illness progression in youth, and may represent a target for early intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".