Cognition and Educational Achievement in the Toronto Adolescent and Youth Cohort Study: Rationale, Methods, and Early Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both cognition and educational achievement in youths are linked to psychosis risk. One major aim of the Toronto Adolescent and Youth (TAY) Cohort Study is to characterize how cognitive and educational achievement trajectories inform the course of psychosis spectrum symptoms (PSSs), functioning, and suicidality. Here, we describe the protocol for the cognitive and educational data and early baseline data. METHODS: The cognitive assessment design is consistent with youth population cohort studies, including the NIH Toolbox, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Wechsler Matrix Reasoning Task, and Little Man Task. Participants complete an educational achievement questionnaire, and report cards are requested. Completion rates, descriptive data, and differences across PSS status are reported for the first participants (N = 417) ages 11 to 24 years, who were recruited between May 4, 2021, and February 2, 2023. RESULTS: Nearly 84% of the sample completed cognitive testing, and 88.2% completed the educational questionnaire, whereas report cards were collected for only 40.3%. Modifications to workflows were implemented to improve data collection. Participants who met criteria for PSSs demonstrated lower performance than those who did not on numerous key cognitive indices (p < .05) and also had more academic/educational problems. CONCLUSIONS: Following youths longitudinally enabled trajectory mapping and prediction based on cognitive and educational performance in relation to PSSs in treatment-seeking youths. Youths with PSSs had lower cognitive performance and worse educational outcomes than youths without PSSs. Results show the feasibility of collecting data on cognitive and educational outcomes in a cohort of youths seeking treatment related to mental illness and substance use.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".