Examining the association of life course neurocognitive ability with real-world functioning in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable variability in neurocognitive functioning within schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, and neurocognitive performance ranges from severe global impairment to normative performance. Few investigations of neurocognitive clusters have considered the degree to which deterioration relative to premorbid neurocognitive abilities is related to key illness characteristics. Moreover, while neurocognition and community functioning are strongly related, understanding of the sources of variability in the association between these two domains is also limited; it is unknown what proportion of participants would over-perform or under-perform the level of functioning expected based on current neurocognitive performance vs. lifelong attainment. This study examined data from 954 outpatients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders across three previous studies. Neurocognition, community functioning, and symptoms were assessed. Neurocognitive subgroups were created based on current neurocognition, estimated premorbid IQ, and degree of deterioration from premorbid using z-score cut-offs; functional subgroups were created with cluster analysis based on the Specific Level of Functioning Scale and current neurocognition. The sample was neurocognitively heterogeneous; 65% displayed current neurocognitive impairment and 84% experienced some level of deterioration. Thirty percent of our sample was relatively higher functioning despite significant neurocognitive impairment. Individuals with better community functioning, regardless of neurocognitive performance, had lower symptom severity compared to those with worse functioning. These results highlight the variability in neurocognition and its role in functioning. Understanding individual differences in neurocognitive and functional profiles and the interaction between prior and current cognitive functioning can guide individualized treatment and selection of participants for clinical treatment 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".