MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316193458 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/rdn3k

Studying psychosis using Natural Language Generation: A review of emerging opportunities

2023· review· en· W4316193458 on OpenAlexaff
Lena Palaniyappan, David Benrimoh, Alban Voppel, Roberta Rocca

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisNatural language generationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Computer scienceCognitive scienceNatural languagePsychologyFunction (biology)Field (mathematics)Artificial intelligencePsychiatryBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disrupted language in psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, can manifest as false contents and formal deviations, often described as thought disorder. These features play a critical role in the social dysfunction associated with psychosis, but we continue to lack insights regarding how these symptoms develop. Natural language Generation (NLG) is a field of computer science that focuses on generating human-like language for various applications. The theory that psychosis is related to the evolution of language in humans suggests that NLG systems that are sufficiently evolved to generate human-like language may also exhibit psychosis-like features. In this conceptual review, we propose using NLG systems that are at various stages of development as in-silico tools to study linguistic features of psychosis. We argue that a program of in-silico experimental research on the network architecture, function, learning rules and training of NLG systems can close in on answering why thought disorder occurs in patients. This will allow us to gain a better understanding of the relationship between language and psychosis and potentially pave the way for new therapeutic approaches to address this vexing challenge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.431
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.058 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207