Dynamic association of the first identifiable symptom with rapidity of progression to first-episode psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid progression from the first identifiable symptom to the onset of first-episode psychosis (FEP) allows less time for early intervention. The aim of this study was to examine the association between the first identifiable symptom and the subsequent speed of illness progression. METHODS: Data were available for 390 patients attending a catchment-based early intervention service for FEP. Exposure to non-psychotic and subthreshold psychotic symptoms was retrospectively recorded using semi-structured interviews. Outcomes following the onset of the first identifiable symptom were (1) time to onset of FEP and (2) symptom incidence rate (i.e. number of symptoms emerging per person-year until FEP onset). These outcomes were respectively analyzed with Cox proportional hazards and negative binomial regressions. RESULTS: non-psychotic) symptom as the first symptom was not associated with time to FEP onset [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.39; 95% CI 0.94-2.04] but was associated with higher symptom incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.92; 95% CI 1.10-3.48]. A first symptom of suspiciousness was associated with shorter time to FEP onset (HR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.38-4.08) and higher symptom incidence rate (IRR = 3.20; 95% CI 1.55-7.28) compared to other first symptoms. In contrast, a first symptom of self-harm was associated with lower symptom incidence rate (IRR = 0.06; 95% CI 0.01-0.73) compared to other first symptoms. Several associations between symptoms and illness progression were moderated by the age at symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: Appreciating the content and timing of early symptoms can identify windows and treatment targets for early interventions in 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".