Functional phenotypes in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: defining the constructs and identifying biopsychosocial correlates using data-driven methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional impairments contribute to poor quality of life in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). We sought to (Objective I) define the main functional phenotypes in SSD, then (Objective II) identify key biopsychosocial correlates, emphasizing interpretable data-driven methods. Objective I was tested on independent samples: Dataset I (N = 282) and Dataset II (N = 317), with SSD participants who underwent assessment of multiple functioning areas. Participants were clustered based on functioning. Objective II was evaluated in Dataset I by identifying key features for classifying functional phenotype clusters from among 65 sociodemographic, psychological, clinical, cognitive, and brain volume measures. Findings were replicated across latent discriminant analyses (LDA) and one-vs.-rest binomial regularized regressions to identify key predictors. We identified three clusters of participants in each dataset, demonstrating replicable functional phenotypes: Cluster 1-poor functioning across domains; Cluster 2-impaired Role Functioning, but partially preserved Independent and Social Functioning; Cluster 3-good functioning across domains. Key correlates were Avolition, anhedonia, left hippocampal volume, and measures of emotional intelligence and subjective social experience. Avolition appeared more closely tied to role functioning, and anhedonia to independent and social functioning. Thus, we found three replicable functional phenotypes with evidence that recovery may not be uniform across domains. Avolition and anhedonia were both critical but played different roles for different functional domains. It may be important to identify critical functional areas for individual patients and target interventions accordingly.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".