Contrasting social knowledge and theory of mind patterns in adults with personality disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Personality disorders (PD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) are distinct conditions displaying common symptoms, like impairments in social cognition, that make them hard to distinguish, especially in severe cases. To date, few studies have compared theory of mind skills in these two disorders, and none have compared social knowledge skills. This study aims to compare the social cognitive abilities of patients with these conditions. METHOD: = 49) on the Social Knowledge Test and two measures of theory of mind: the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test and the Combined Stories Test, which incorporates items from various widely used tests. RESULTS: While no significant group differences were found on the Social Knowledge Test, SSD patients performed lower than the HC group on both theory of mind tests. PD patients only had lower performance than the HC group on specific items from the Combined Stories Test. CONCLUSIONS: PD and SSD patients demonstrated distinctive patterns of social cognitive impairments, with items of greater complexity or with an affective orientation being the most discriminant for PD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".