Examining the psychobiological response to acute social stress across clinical stages and symptom trajectories in the early psychosis continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The stress-vulnerability model has been repeatedly highlighted in relation to the risk, onset and course of psychosis, and has been independently studied in clinical high-risk (CHR) and first-episode psychosis (FEP) populations. Notable in this literature, however, is that there are few studies directly comparing markers of stress response across progressive stages of illness. Here we examined the psychobiological response to the Trier Social Stress Test in 28 CHR (mean age 19.1) and 61 FEP (age 23.0) patients, in order to understand the stage(s) or trajectories in which differences in subjective stress or physiological response occur. The overall clinical sample had greater perceived stress and blunted cortisol (FEP + CHR, n = 89, age 21.7) compared with healthy controls (n = 45, age 22.9). Additional analyses demonstrated elevated heart rate and systolic blood pressure in FEP compared with CHR, but there were no further differences in physiological parameters (cortisol, heart rate, or blood pressure) between stage- or trajectory-based groups. Together, this suggests that individual stress response markers may differentially emerge at particular stages en route to psychosis – and demonstrates how stage-based analyses can shed light on the emergence and evolution of neurobiological changes in mental illness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".