Ageing with psychosis – Fifty and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While there is considerable current emphasis on youth and early psychosis, relatively little is known about the lives of people who live with psychotic disorders into middle age and beyond. We investigated social functioning, physical health status, substance use and psychiatric symptom profile in people with psychotic disorders aged between 50 and 65 years. METHODS: = 1478) across a range of measures. RESULTS: The older group contained more women and more people with affective psychoses compared to the younger group. They were also more likely to have had a later onset and a chronic course of illness. The older group were more likely to have negative symptoms but less likely to exhibit positive symptoms; they also had lower current cognition, compared to the younger group. Compared to the younger group, the older group were more likely to be divorced/separated, to be living alone and to be unemployed. They had substantially lower lifetime use of alcohol and illicit substances, but rates of obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes mellitus were higher. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the characteristics of people with psychosis change significantly as they progress into the middle age and beyond. A better understanding of these differences is important in informing targeted treatment strategies for older people living with psychosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".