Cognitive functioning and insight in schizophrenia and in schizoaffective disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate cognitive functioning and insight of illness in two groups of patients during their stable phases, one with schizophrenia and one with schizoaffective disorder. METHODS: We recruited 104 consecutive outpatients, 64 with schizophrenia, 40 with schizoaffective disorder, in the period between July 2010 and July 2011. They all fulfilled formal Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR) diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Psychiatric assessment included the Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity (CGI-S), the Positive and Negative Sindrome Scale (PANSS), the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Insight of illness was evaluated using SUMD. Neuropsychological assessment included Winsconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), Stroop Test and Trail Making Test (TMT). Differences between the groups were tested using Chi-square test for categorical variables and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables. All variables significantly different between the two groups of subjects were subsequently analysed using a logistic regression with a backward stepwise procedure using diagnosis (schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder) as dependent variable. RESULTS: After backward selection of variables, four variables predicted a schizoaffective disorder diagnosis: marital status, a higher number of admission, better attentive functions and awareness of specific signs or symptoms of disease. The prediction model accounted for 55% of the variance of schizoaffective disorder diagnosis. DISCUSSION: With replication, our findings would allow higher diagnostic accuracy and have an impact on clinical decision making, in light of an amelioration of vocational functioning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".