MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401412378 · doi:10.1101/2024.08.07.24311240

Cognitive subtypes in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis

2024· preprint· en· W4401412378 on OpenAlexaff
Walid Yassin, James B. Green, Matcheri S. Keshavan, Elisabetta C. del Re, Jean Addington, Carrie E. Bearden, Kristin S. Cadenhead, Tyrone D. Cannon, Barbara A. Cornblatt, Daniel H. Mathalon, Diana O. Perkins, Elaine F. Walker, Scott W. Woods, William S. Stone

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisCognitionPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Schizophrenia is a mental health condition that severely impacts well-being. Cognitive impairment is among its core features, often presenting well before the onset of overt psychosis, underscoring a critical need to study it in the psychosis proneness (clinical high risk; CHR) stage, to maximize the benefits of interventions and to improve clinical outcomes. However, given the heterogeneity of cognitive impairment in this population, a one-size-fits-all approach to therapeutic interventions would likely be insufficient. Thus, identifying cognitive subtypes in this population is crucial for tailored and successful therapeutic interventions. Here we identify, validate, and characterize cognitive subtypes in large CHR samples and delineate their baseline and longitudinal cognitive and functional trajectories. Methods: Using machine learning, we performed cluster analysis on cognitive measures in a large sample of CHR youth (n = 764), and demographically comparable controls (HC; n = 280) from the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) 2, and independently validated our findings with an equally large sample (NAPLS 3; n = 628 CHR, 84 HC). By utilizing several statistical approaches, we compared the clusters on cognition and functioning at baseline, and over 24 months of followup. We further delineate the conversion status within those clusters. Results: Two main cognitive clusters were identified, "impaired" and "intact" across all cognitive domains in CHR compared to HC. Baseline differences between the cognitively intact cluster and HC were found in the verbal abilities and attention and working memory domains. Longitudinally, those in the cognitively impaired cluster group demonstrated an overall floor effect and did not deteriorate further over time. However, a "catch up" trajectory was observed in the attention and working memory domain. This group had higher instances of conversion overall, with these converters having significantly more non-affective psychotic disorder diagnosis versus bipolar disorder, than those with intact cognition. In the cognitively intact group, we observed differences in trajectory based on conversion status, where those who start with intact cognition and later convert demonstrate a sharp decline in attention and functioning. Functioning was significantly better in the cognitively intact than in the impaired group at baseline. Most of the cognitive trajectories demonstrate a positive relationship with functional ones. Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence for intact and impaired cognitive subtypes in youth at CHR, independent of conversion status. They further indicate that attention and working memory are important to distinguish between the CHR with intact cognition and controls. The cognitively intact CHR group becomes less attentive after conversion, while the cognitively impaired one demonstrates a catch up trajectory on both attention and working memory. Overall, early evaluation, covering several cognitive domains, is crucial for identifying trajectories of improvement and deterioration for the purpose of tailoring intervention for improving outcomes in individuals at CHR for psychosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→