Development of the PSYCHS: Positive SYmptoms and Diagnostic Criteria for the CAARMS Harmonized with the SIPS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To harmonize two ascertainment and severity rating instruments commonly used for the clinical high risk syndrome for psychosis (CHR-P): the Structured Interview for Psychosis-risk Syndromes (SIPS) and the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS). Methods: The initial workshop is described in the companion report from Addington et al. After the workshop, lead experts for each instrument continued harmonizing attenuated positive symptoms and criteria for psychosis and CHR-P through an intensive series of joint videoconferences. Results: Full harmonization was achieved for attenuated positive symptom ratings and psychosis criteria, and partial harmonization for CHR-P criteria. The semi-structured interview, named P ositive SY mptoms and Diagnostic Criteria for the C AARMS H armonized with the S IPS (PSYCHS), generates CHR-P criteria and severity scores for both CAARMS and SIPS. Conclusion: Using the PSYCHS for CHR-P ascertainment, conversion determination, and attenuated positive symptom severity rating will help in comparing findings across studies and in meta-analyses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".