Emotional tone in clinical high risk for psychosis: novel insights from a natural language analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis experience subtle emotional disturbances that are traditionally difficult to assess, but natural language processing (NLP) methods may provide novel insight into these symptoms. We predicted that CHR individuals would express more negative emotionality and less emotional language when compared to controls. We also examined associations with symptomatology. Methods: Participants included 49 CHR individuals and 42 healthy controls who completed a semi-structured narrative interview. Interview transcripts were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to assess the emotional tone of the language (tone -the ratio of negative to positive language) and count positive/negative words used. Participants also completed clinical symptom assessments to determine CHR status and characterize symptoms (i.e., positive and negative symptom domains). Results: 's>.05). Conclusions: Language analyses provided accessible, ecologically valid insight into affective dysfunction and psychosis risk symptoms. Natural language processing analyses unmasked differences in language for CHR that captured language tendencies that were more nuanced than the words that are chosen.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".