Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key issue in both research and clinical work with youth at clinical high risk (CHR) of psychosis is that there are clearly heterogenous clinical outcomes in addition to the development of psychosis. Thus, it is important to capture the psychopathologic outcomes of the CHR group and develop a core outcomes assessment set that may help in dissecting the heterogeneity and aid progress toward new treatments. In assessing psychopathology and often poor social and role functioning, we may be missing the important perspectives of the CHR individuals themselves. It is important to consider the perspectives of youth at CHR by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This systematic review of PROMs in CHR was conducted based on a comprehensive search of several databases and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Sixty-four publications were included in the review examining PROMs for symptoms, functioning, quality of life, self-perceptions, stress, and resilience. Typically, PROMs were not the primary focus of the studies reviewed. The PROMs summarized here fit with results published elsewhere in the literature based on interviewer measures. However, very few of the measures used were validated for CHR or for youth. There are several recommendations for determining a core set of PROMs for use with CHR.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".