Sex Differences in Clinical and Functional Outcomes among Patients Treated in an Early Intervention Service for Psychotic Disorders: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It has been shown that men with a longstanding psychotic disorder have worse clinical and functional outcomes than women. Our objectives were to examine whether these sex differences are also present among patients treated in an early intervention service (EIS) for psychosis and to determine if these differences are related to risk factors other than sex. METHOD: = 569) were assessed for demographic/clinical characteristics at entry and for symptoms/functioning over 2 years of treatment. Clinical outcomes included remission of positive, negative, and total symptoms. Functional outcomes included good functioning and functional remission. Logistic regression models examined the relationship between sex and outcomes after 1 and 2 years of treatment while controlling for the influence of other risk factors. RESULTS: Men reported to be less educated and have a longer duration of untreated psychosis, poorer childhood and early adolescent premorbid functioning, higher rates of substance abuse/dependence disorders, greater severity of baseline negative symptoms, and poorer baseline social/occupational functioning than women. Women were more likely to achieve symptom remission than men after 2 years of treatment (negative odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 2.78; total OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.98). Women were also more likely than men to exhibit good functioning (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.49) after 1 but not after 2 years of treatment. These results did not persist after controlling for other risk factors that could confound these associations (i.e., childhood premorbid functioning and age at onset of psychosis). CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences seen in outcomes among patients treated in an EIS for psychosis may be largely influenced by the disparity of other risk factors that exist between the 2 sexes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".