Can Social Anxiety Impact Facial Emotion Recognition in Schizophrenia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social anxiety is highly prevalent in individuals with schizophrenia, with studies suggesting rates of 30%. This study aimed at determining if social anxiety is linked to specific emotion recognition deficits and to specific social functioning deficits. A total of 47 participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and receiving outpatient services answered measures of facial recognition (Ekman; Facial Emotion Identification Test), facial discrimination (Facial Emotion Discrimination Test), role-play, social anxiety (Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Brief Social Phobia Scale), psychiatric symptoms (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), self-esteem (Self-Esteem Rating Scale-Short Form), and social functioning (Social Functioning Scale). A total of 22 (47%) participants were rated as socially anxious. Those with social anxiety had worse social functioning in the domains of interpersonal communication (t[45] = 2.28, p = 0.025) and engagement (in conversations) (t[45] = 2.89, p = 0.000) and had lower self-esteem (t[45] = 4.05, p = 0.001). Participants with social anxiety also had more difficulties in recognizing neutral emotional faces (t[31] = 2.19, p = 0.036). More studies are warranted to better understand the link between neutral expression recognition and social anxiety in schizophrenia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".