Increased Belief Instability in Psychotic Disorders Predicts Treatment Response to Metacognitive Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: In a complex world, gathering information and adjusting our beliefs about the world is of paramount importance. The literature suggests that patients with psychotic disorders display a tendency to draw early conclusions based on limited evidence, referred to as the jumping-to-conclusions bias, but few studies have examined the computational mechanisms underlying this and related belief-updating biases. Here, we employ a computational approach to understand the relationship between jumping-to-conclusions, psychotic disorders, and delusions. STUDY DESIGN: We modeled probabilistic reasoning of 261 patients with psychotic disorders and 56 healthy controls during an information sampling task-the fish task-with the Hierarchical Gaussian Filter. Subsequently, we examined the clinical utility of this computational approach by testing whether computational parameters, obtained from fitting the model to each individual's behavior, could predict treatment response to Metacognitive Training using machine learning. STUDY RESULTS: We observed differences in probabilistic reasoning between patients with psychotic disorders and healthy controls, participants with and without jumping-to-conclusions bias, but not between patients with low and high current delusions. The computational analysis suggested that belief instability was increased in patients with psychotic disorders. Jumping-to-conclusions was associated with both increased belief instability and greater prior uncertainty. Lastly, belief instability predicted treatment response to Metacognitive Training at the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: Our results point towards increased belief instability as a key computational mechanism underlying probabilistic reasoning in psychotic disorders. We provide a proof-of-concept that this computational approach may be useful to help identify suitable treatments for individual patients with psychotic disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".