Understanding source monitoring subtypes and their relation to psychosis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Source monitoring (SM) is the metacognitive ability to determine the origin of one's experiences. SM is altered in primary psychiatric psychosis, although relationships between SM subtypes, other cognitive domains and symptoms are unclear. Our aims were to synthesize evidence comparing psychosis -with and without hallucinations- and healthy controls classifying SM subtypes by source discrimination (internal/external/reality monitoring) and stimulus modality (visual/auditory/imagined/performed). METHODS: This systematic review adopted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes guidelines. Core demographical and clinical parameters were extracted. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used as quality check. SM differences between (i) psychosis patients versus healthy controls and (ii) patients with versus without hallucinations were investigated via random-effect model meta-analysis. The primary effect size measure was standardized mean difference (SMD) in each SM subtype performance (error or accuracy). Heterogeneity, publication biases and meta-regressions were assessed. RESULTS: Five thousand two hundred and fifty-six records were screened to finally include 44 studies (1566 patients, 1175 controls). Mean Newcastle-Ottawa score was 7.41 out of 9. Few studies measured SM associations with cognition (n = 9) and symptoms (n = 19), with heterogeneous findings. SM performance across all measures was reduced in psychosis versus healthy controls (SMD = 0.458). Internal SM (SMD: errors = 0.513; accuracy = 0.733) and imagined stimuli (SMD: errors = 0.688; accuracy = 0.978) were specifically impaired. Patients with versus without hallucinations showed SM deficits only for externalizing (SMD = 0.410) and imagined/auditory (SMD = 0.498/0.277) errors. CONCLUSION: The proposed classifications highlight specific SM deficits for internal/imagined stimuli in psychosis, providing evidence-based indications to design and interpret future studies.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".