Brain Imaging in Adolescents and Young Adults With First-Episode Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the lack of clear guidelines, neuroimaging (computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) is frequently performed in subjects presenting with first-episode psychosis (FEP). The objective of this study was to determine if the use of neuroimaging adds diagnostic yield in adolescents and young adults presenting with FEP. METHODS: The sample consisted of 443 subjects aged 15-24 with FEP (DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5) and no focal neurologic findings. Consecutive charts from January 1, 1998, to June 30, 2016, were reviewed retrospectively. A positive finding was defined as a result leading to urgent follow-up or intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-five (5.6%) of 443 subjects showed incidental findings unrelated to psychosis. The prevalence of positive findings from neuroimaging was 0%, indicating no diagnostic yield from neuroimaging. CONCLUSIONS: Routine neuroimaging did not provide diagnostic information leading to a change in clinical management and should not be recommended in the investigation of FEP.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".