MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4212823311 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26713

Inefficient Neural Self-Stabilization: A theory of spontaneous resolutions and recurrent relapses in psychosis

2018· preprint· en· W4212823311 on OpenAlexaff
Lena Palaniyappan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyPopulationFeature (linguistics)NeuroscienceVariable (mathematics)Variation (astronomy)PsychiatryMedicineCognitive psychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A striking feature of psychosis is the heterogeneity of the phenomenon.Presentations of psychosis vary from transient symptoms with no functional consequence in the general population to a tenacious illness on the other extreme, with a wide range of variable trajectories in between. Even among patients with schizophrenia, who are diagnosed on the basis of persistent deterioration, marked variation is seen in response to treatment, frequency of relapses and degree of eventual recovery. Existing theoretical accounts of psychosis almost exclusively focus on how symptoms are initially formed, with much less emphasis on explaining their variable course. In this review, I present an account that links several existing notions on the biology of psychosis with the variant clinical trajectories. My aim is to incorporate perspectives of systems neuroscience in a staging framework to explain the individual variations in illness course that follows the onset of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→