Real-world digital implementation of the Psychosis Polyrisk Score (PPS): A pilot feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Psychosis Polyrisk Score (PPS) is a potential biomarker integrating non-purely genetic risk/protective factors for psychosis that may improve identification of individuals at risk and prediction of their outcomes at the individual subject level. Biomarkers that are easy to administer are direly needed in early psychosis to facilitate clinical implementation. This study digitally implements the PPS and pilots its feasibility of use in the real world. METHODS: The PPS was implemented digitally and prospectively piloted across individuals referred for a CHR-P assessment (n = 16) and healthy controls (n = 66). Distribution of PPS scores was further simulated in the general population. RESULTS: 98.8% of individuals referred for a CHR-P assessment and healthy controls completed the PPS assessment with only one drop-out. 96.3% of participants completed the assessment in under 15 min. Individuals referred for a CHR-P assessment had high PPS scores (mean = 6.2, SD = 7.23) than healthy controls (mean = -1.79, SD = 6.78, p < 0.001). In simulated general population data, scores were normally distributed ranging from -15 (lowest risk, RR = 0.03) to 39.5 (highest risk, RR = 8912.51). DISCUSSION: The PPS is a promising biomarker which has been implemented digitally. The PPS can be easily administered to both healthy controls and individuals at potential risk for psychosis on a range of devices. It is feasible to use the PPS in real world settings to assess individuals with emerging mental disorders. The next phase of research should be to include the PPS in large-scale international cohort studies to evaluate its ability to refine the prognostication of outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".