Neurocognitive functioning and associated symptoms of psychosis in homeless and precariously housed adults with multimorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been fairly well-established that discrete psychiatric symptoms, such as the positive, negative, and general symptoms of psychosis, are differentially related to distinct deficits in neurocognition.Less well-known are the relationships between symptoms of psychosis and profiles of neurocognitive strengths and weaknesses and no previous study has delineated these relationships in homeless and precariously housed persons living with multimorbidity.Using a unique three-factorial solution on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale in a large sample of marginalized persons living in the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, Canada, we examined the relationships between neurocognitive profiles derived by Latent Profile Analysis and symptoms of psychosis and other psychiatric and psychosocial variables.A three-class solution was found to be of optimal fit, consisting of a comparatively cognitively higher-functioning subgroup, with a relative strength in fluid reasoning (Class 1), and two comparatively cognitively impaired subgroups: one subgroup displaying the same profile of relative strength as Class 1 (Class 2), and a selectively severely cognitively impaired subgroup with a relative strength in attentional control, processing speed, and encoding and retrieval (Class 3).Subsequent between-group comparisons revealed that the two cognitively impaired subgroups overall suffered from more severe symptoms of psychosis and worse psychosocial and adaptive functioning.Our findings contrast the links between cognitive profiles and symptoms of psychosis detected in clinical samples featuring patients with schizophrenia, underscoring the importance of considering the unique interrelationships between neurocognition and psychosis that exist in marginalized persons with multimorbid conditions when implementing targeted intervention strategies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".