RETRACTED: Dynamic Prediction of Outcomes for Youth at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Leveraging the dynamic nature of clinical variables in the clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) population has the potential to significantly improve the performance of outcome prediction models. Objective: To improve performance of prediction models and elucidate dynamic clinical profiles using joint modeling to predict conversion to psychosis and symptom remission. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were collected as part of the third wave of the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS 3), which is a 9-site prospective longitudinal study. Participants were individuals aged 12 to 30 years who met criteria for a psychosis-risk syndrome. Clinical, neurocognitive, and demographic variables were collected at baseline and at multiple follow-up visits, beginning at 2 months and up to 24 months. An initial feature selection process identified longitudinal clinical variables that showed differential change for each outcome group across 2 months. With these variables, a joint modeling framework was used to estimate the likelihood of eventual outcomes. Models were developed and tested in a 10-fold cross-validation framework. Clinical data were collected between February 2015 and November 2018, and data were analyzed from February 2022 to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prediction models were built to predict conversion to psychosis and symptom remission. Participants met criteria for conversion if their positive symptoms reached the fully psychotic range and for symptom remission if they were subprodromal on the Scale of Psychosis-Risk Symptoms for a duration of 6 months or more. Results: Of 488 included NAPLS 3 participants, 232 (47.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 18.2 (3.4) years. Joint models achieved a high level of accuracy in predicting conversion (balanced accuracy [BAC], 0.91) and remission (BAC, 0.99) compared with baseline models (conversion: BAC, 0.65; remission: BAC, 0.60). Clinical variables that showed differential change between outcome groups across a 2-month span, including measures of symptom severity and aspects of functioning, were also identified. Further, intra-individual risks for each outcome were more negatively correlated when using joint models (r = -0.92; P < .001) compared with baseline models (r = -0.50; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, joint models significantly outperformed baseline models in predicting both conversion and remission, demonstrating that monitoring short-term clinical change may help to parse heterogeneous dynamic clinical trajectories in a CHR-P population. These findings could inform additional study of targeted treatment selection and could move the field closer to clinical implementation of prediction models.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".