Depression, family interaction and family intervention in adolescents at <scp>clinical‐high</scp> risk for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The relationship between family behaviour and depression in adolescents at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis remains understudied despite high rates of depression in this population. This study examines the relationship between family problem-solving behaviours and depression in CHR adolescents and the impact of family interventions targeting subthreshold symptoms of psychosis on reducing symptoms of depression over 2-years. METHODS: Participants were a subset of the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study who were randomized to 6-months of family focused therapy for individuals at CHR or family psychoeducational treatment. We evaluated the relationship between communication during family conflict discussion and adolescents' symptoms of depression before treatment. At follow-up assessments the family treatment groups were compared on depression. Finally, we compared those in family treatment with matched controls. RESULTS: Adolescents' constructive communication was associated with less severe symptoms of depression before treatment. Symptoms of depression improved for adolescents in both family treatment groups. However, there were no significant group by treatment interactions. When adolescents who participated in either type of family intervention were compared to CHR adolescent controls, symptoms of depression improved for adolescents in treatment and control groups, but there were no significant time by treatment interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The communication skills of CHR adolescents are related to both depression and their parents' communication skills pre-treatment. However, reductions in depression over the course of the treatment trial cannot be attributed to family treatment. It is imperative to incorporate interventions that directly target depression into future family treatment studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".