MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936268932 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbz020.566

S21. THE IMPACT OF PERSISTENT NEGATIVE SYMPTOMS ON FUNCTIONING AND DEFEATIST BELIEFS IN YOUTH AT CLINICAL HIGH RISK FOR PSYCHOSIS

2019· article· en· W2936268932 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dan Devoe, Lu Liu, Kristen S. Cadenhead, Tyrone D. Cannon, Barbara A. Cornblatt, Thomas H. McGlashan, Diana O. Perkins, Larry J. Seidman, Ming T. Tsuang, Elaine F. Walker, Scott W. Woods, Carrie E. Bearden, Daniel H. Mathalon, Jean Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProdromeAnhedoniaSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyPsychosisClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persistent negative symptoms (PNS) are defined as enduring moderate negative symptoms while controlling for principal sources of secondary negative symptoms. PNS symptoms have been associated with poor functional outcomes in schizophrenia. Furthermore, in schizophrenia negative symptoms and poor functioning have been reportedly associated with defeatist beliefs (e.g., “I always fail”). Youth at clinical high risk (CHR) for developing psychosis often demonstrate negative symptoms, poor functioning, and defeatist beliefs. The goal of this study was to determine if negative symptoms were associated with poor functioning and defeatist beliefs in a CHR longitudinal cohort. CHR (N=764) participants were recruited for the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS 2) at 8-sites across North America. Negative symptoms were rated on the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (SOPS) at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. For this study negative symptoms were restricted to social anhedonia (N1), avolition (N2), and expression of emotion (N3) based on recommendations from the NIMH-MATRICS consensus statement on negative symptoms. PNS were defined as having one of these three negative symptoms scored ≥4 (i.e., moderately severe to extreme) for a period of one year. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS). To assess defeatist beliefs the Brief Core Schema Scale (BCSS) was utilized as a proxy to evaluate negative self-beliefs (e.g., “I am worthless”) and positive self-beliefs (e.g., “I am valuable”). Generalized linear mixed models for repeated measures were used to examine changes over time between and within groups to accommodate for missing data and account for intra-participant correlations. Sixty-seven CHR individuals had PNS. Mixed-effect models demonstrated that the PNS group had significant global, social, and role functioning deficits at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months compared to CHR individuals without PNS (n=673). Moreover, functioning did not improve in the PNS group while functioning in the group without PNS significantly improved over time. There were no significant differences between the groups on depressive symptoms with the CDSS. The PNS group had significantly higher BCSS self-negative beliefs at 12 and 24 months compared to the group without PNS. Individuals without PNS had significantly higher positive self-beliefs (e.g., “I am valuable”) at baseline, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months compared to the PNS group. The results indicate that in the NAPLS cohort 10% of CHR individuals have PNS. Moreover, the PNS group demonstrated significant and persistent global, social, and role functioning deficits compared to those without PNS. The group without PNS had higher levels of positive beliefs (e.g., “I am successful”), which may indicate a protective factor against developing PNS.

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)0.005
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207