Delusional content at initial presentation to a catchment-based early intervention service for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During a psychotic episode, patients frequently suffer from severe maladaptive beliefs known as delusions. Despite the abundant literature investigating the simple presence or absence of these beliefs, there exists little detailed knowledge regarding their actual content and severity at the onset of illness. AIMS: This study reports on delusions during the initiation of indicated treatment for first-episode psychosis (FEP). METHOD: Data were systematically collected from a sample of 636 patients entering a catchment-based early intervention service for FEP. The average severity and frequency of each delusional theme at baseline was reported with the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms. Delusional severity (globally and per theme) was examined across a number of sociodemographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: Delusions were present in the vast majority of individuals experiencing onset of FEP (94%), with persecutory (77.7%) being the most common theme. Persecutory delusions remained consistent in severity across diagnoses, but were more severe with older age at onset of FEP. No meaningful differences in delusional severity were observed across gender, affective versus non-affective psychosis, or presence/absence of substance use disorder. Globally, delusion severity was associated with anxiety, but not depression. Delusions commonly referred to as passivity experiences were related to hallucinatory experiences. CONCLUSIONS: This community sample offers a rare clinical lens into the severity and content of delusions in FEP. Although delusional severity was consistent across certain sociodemographic and clinical variables, this was not always the case. Future research should now consider the course of delusion themes over time.
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".