Deciphering the interplay between psychopathological symptoms, sensorimotor, cognitive and global functioning: a transdiagnostic network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationship between psychopathology and major domains of human neurobehavioral functioning may identify new transdiagnostic treatment targets. However, studies examining the interrelationship between psychopathological symptoms, sensorimotor, cognitive, and global functioning in a transdiagnostic sample are lacking. We hypothesized a close relationship between sensorimotor and cognitive functioning in a transdiagnostic patient sample. METHODS: We applied network analysis and community detection methods to examine the interplay and centrality [expected influence (EI) and strength] between psychopathological symptoms, sensorimotor, cognitive, and global functioning in a transdiagnostic sample consisting of 174 schizophrenia spectrum (SSD) and 38 mood disorder (MOD) patients. All patients (n = 212) were examined with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Heidelberg Neurological Soft Signs Scale (NSS), the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), and the Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool for Schizophrenia consisted of trail making test B (TMT-B), category fluency (CF) and digit symbol substitution test (DSST). RESULTS: NSS showed closer connections with TMT-B, CF, and DSST than with GAF and PANSS. DSST, PANSS general, and NSS motor coordination scores showed the highest EI. Sensory integration, DSST, and CF showed the highest strength. CONCLUSIONS: The close connection between sensorimotor and cognitive impairment as well as the high centrality of sensorimotor symptoms suggests that both domains share aspects of SSD and MOD pathophysiology. But, because the majority of the study population was diagnosed with SSD, the question as to whether sensorimotor symptoms are really a transdiagnostic therapeutic target needs to be examined in future studies including more balanced diagnostic groups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".