Models of mild cognitive deficits in risk assessment in early psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mild cognitive deficits (MCD) emerge before the first episode of psychosis (FEP) and persist in the clinical high-risk (CHR) stage. This study aims to refine risk prediction by developing MCD models optimized for specific early psychosis stages and target populations. Methods A comprehensive neuropsychological battery assessed 1059 individuals with FEP, 794 CHR, and 774 matched healthy controls (HCs). CHR subjects, followed up for 2 years, were categorized into converters (CHR-C) and non-converters (CHR-NC). The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery standardized neurocognitive tests were employed. Results Both the CHR and FEP groups exhibited significantly poorer performance compared to the HC group across all neurocognitive tests (all p < 0.001). The CHR-C group demonstrated poorer performance compared to the CHR-NC group on three sub-tests: visuospatial memory (p < 0.001), mazes (p = 0.005), and symbol coding (p = 0.023) tests. Upon adjusting for sex and age, the performance of the MCD model was excellent in differentiating FEP from HC, as evidenced by an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) of 0.895 (p < 0.001). However, when applied in the CHR group for predicting CHR-C (AUC = 0.581, p = 0.008), the performance was not satisfactory. To optimize the efficiency of psychotic risk assessment, three distinct MCD models were developed to distinguish FEP from HC, predict CHR-C from CHR-NC, and identify CHR from HC, achieving accuracies of 89.3%, 65.6%, and 80.2%, respectively. Conclusions The MCD exhibits variations in domains, patterns, and weights across different stages of early psychosis and diverse target populations. Emphasizing precise risk assessment, our findings highlight the importance of tailored MCD models for different stages and risk levels.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".