How does a family history of psychosis influence the risk of methamphetamine‐related psychotic symptoms: Evidence from longitudinal panel data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine whether the risk of psychotic symptoms during weeks of methamphetamine use was dependent on, increased by, or independent of having a family history of psychosis. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of 13 contiguous 1-week periods of data (1370 weeks). A risk modification framework was used to test each scenario. SETTING: Geelong, Wollongong and Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in a randomized controlled trial of treatment for methamphetamine dependence (n = 148) who did not have a primary psychotic disorder on enrolment. MEASUREMENTS: Psychotic symptoms in the previous week were defined as a score of 3+ on any of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale items of hallucinations, unusual thought content or suspiciousness. Any (vs no) methamphetamine use in the previous week was assessed using the Timeline Followback method. Self-reported family history of psychosis was assessed using the Diagnostic Interview for Psychosis. FINDINGS: The risk of psychotic symptoms in the past week was independently associated with methamphetamine use in that week (relative risk [RR] = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.3-4.3) and with having a family history of psychosis (RR = 2.4, 95% CI = 0.9-7.0); the joint risk among participants with a family history of psychosis during weeks when they were using methamphetamine was large (RR = 4.0, 95% CI = 2.0-7.9). There was no significant interaction between a family history of psychosis and methamphetamine use in predicting psychotic symptoms (interaction RR = 0.7 95% CI = 0.3-1.8), but there was a small non-significant excess risk due to the interaction (0.20 95% CI = -1.63 to 2.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among people dependent on methamphetamine, the relative risk of psychotic symptoms during weeks of methamphetamine use does not appear to be dependent on, or increased by, having a family history of psychosis. However, a family history of psychosis does appear to be an independent risk factor that contributes to the absolute risk of psychotic symptoms in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".