MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235059981 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/9nzd8

Converting scores between the PANSS and SAPS/SANS beyond the positive/negative dichotomy

2020· preprint· en· W4235059981 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Grot, Charles‐Édouard Giguère, Salima Smine, Violaine Mongeau‐Pérusse, Dana D. Nguyen, Adrian Preda, Stéphane Potvin, Theo G.M. van Erp, Pierre Orban

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyScale for the Assessment of Negative SymptomsClinical psychologyLinear regressionCorrelationCognitionExploratory factor analysisScale (ratio)Negative symptomDevelopmental psychologyPsychosisPsychiatryPsychometricsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Previous work provided conversion equations for overall indices of positive and negative symptomatology between the two most widely used scales to assess symptom severity in schizophrenia, namely the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Scales for the Assessment of Positive/Negative Symptoms (SAPS/SANS). Our objective was to provide such conversion equations for subdomains of positive and negative symptomatology in order to better account for the diversity of symptom profiles in schizophrenia.Method: Symptoms severity was assessed using both the PANSS and SAPS/SANS in 205 patients with schizophrenia. Two exploratory factor analyses combining items from both scales were first performed separately in the positive and negative symptom domains. For each identified factor, linear regression analyses were then conducted to obtain conversion equations from the PANSS to the SAPS/SANS and vice versa. Linear regression model estimation was performed on 80% of the data, and reliability was then evaluated on the 20% remaining data using intra-class correlation coefficient between the original and predicted scores. This procedure was repeated 100 times with random samplings for each factor cross-scale conversion.Results: Three-factor solutions were favored both in the positive and negative symptom domains. Based on the nature of items that strongly loaded on the different factors, positive factors were termed ‘Hallucinations’, ‘Delusions’ and ‘Disorganization’, while negative factors were associated with ‘Expressivity’, ‘Amotivation’ and ‘Cognition’. Intra-class correlation coefficients between the original and predicted scores were good to excellent (0.68-0.87) for all regressions, but for the cognition factor which were deemed as low (0.25, 0.26).Conclusion: The symptom subdomains identified by the decomposition of the positive and negative domains were consistent with current descriptions of symptom dimensions in schizophrenia. With the exception of the cognition subdomain, symptom severity scores can be converted with good accuracy between scales, beyond the positive/negative symptom dichotomy. Conversion equations are implemented in an R Shiny app to facilitate their use by the clinical research community.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Research Topics→French-language works237,207→