Functional Impairments and Theory of Mind Deficits in Schizophrenia: A Meta-analysis of the Associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenia is associated with major functioning difficulties. Theory of mind (ToM), the ability to infer the mental states of others, is an important determinant of functioning. However, the contribution of ToM to each specific domain of functioning remains to be better understood. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to document and compare the magnitude of the associations between ToM and (1) different domains of functioning (social functioning, productive activities, and instrumental activities of daily living), each assessed separately for functional performance and functional outcome and (2) different aspects of functioning (functional performance and functional outcome) in schizophrenia. Fifty-nine studies (N = 4369) published between 1980 and May 2019 targeting patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder aged between 18 and 65 years old were included. Studies were retrieved from seven databases. Correlations were extracted from the articles, transformed into effect sizes Zr and combined as weighted and unweighted means. The strength of the associations between the domains and aspects of functioning were compared using focused tests. A moderate association was observed between ToM and all domains of functioning, with a stronger association between ToM and productive activities compared with social functioning (only for functional outcome [χ2(2) = 6.43, P = 0.040]). Regarding the different aspects of functioning, a stronger association was observed between ToM and functional performance, compared with functional outcome, for overall functioning (χ2(1) = 13.77, P < 0.001) and social functioning (χ2(1) = 18.21, P < 0.001). The results highlight a stronger association of ToM with productive activities and with functional performance, which should be considered in future studies to improve functional recovery in schizophrenia.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".