First episode psychosis and weight gain a longitudinal perspective in Cheshire UK: a comparison between individuals with nonaffective versus affective psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Early weight gain following initiation of antipsychotic treatment predicts longer-term weight gain, with attendant long-term consequences including premature cardiovascular events/death. An important question is whether there is a difference in weight change over time between people with affective versus nonaffective psychosis. Here we describe the results of a real-world analysis of the BMI change in the months postdiagnosis with affective versus nonaffective psychosis. Methods We undertook an anonymised search across one Primary Care Network in Cheshire, UK with a total population of 32 301 individuals. We reviewed the health records of anyone who had been diagnosed over a 10-year period between June 2012 and June 2022 for the first time with first episode nonaffective psychosis versus psychosis associated with depression or bipolar affective disorder (affective psychosis). Results The overall % change in BMI was +8% in nonaffective psychosis individuals and +4% in those with a diagnosis of affective psychosis – however, the distribution was markedly skewed for nonaffective psychosis patients. Using caseness as >30% increase in BMI; affective = 4% cases and nonaffective = 13% cases, there was a three-fold difference in terms of increase in BMI. In regression analysis, the r 2 linking the initial BMI to % change in BMI was 0.13 for nonaffective psychosis and 0.14 for affective psychosis. Conclusion The differences observed here in the distribution of weight change over time between individuals with affective versus nonaffective psychosis may relate to underlying constitutional differences. The phenotypic and genetic factors underlying this difference remain to be defined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".