Multivariable prediction of functional outcome after first-episode psychosis: a crossover validation approach in EUFEST and PSYSCAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several multivariate prognostic models have been published to predict outcomes in patients with first episode psychosis (FEP), but it remains unclear whether those predictions generalize to independent populations. Using a subset of demographic and clinical baseline predictors, we aimed to develop and externally validate different models predicting functional outcome after a FEP in the context of a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder (FES), based on a previously published cross-validation and machine learning pipeline. A crossover validation approach was adopted in two large, international cohorts (EUFEST, n = 338, and the PSYSCAN FES cohort, n = 226). Scores on the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF) at 12 month follow-up were dichotomized to differentiate between poor (GAF current < 65) and good outcome (GAF current ≥ 65). Pooled non-linear support vector machine (SVM) classifiers trained on the separate cohorts identified patients with a poor outcome with cross-validated balanced accuracies (BAC) of 65-66%, but BAC dropped substantially when the models were applied to patients from a different FES cohort (BAC = 50-56%). A leave-site-out analysis on the merged sample yielded better performance (BAC = 72%), highlighting the effect of combining data from different study designs to overcome calibration issues and improve model transportability. In conclusion, our results indicate that validation of prediction models in an independent sample is essential in assessing the true value of the model. Future external validation studies, as well as attempts to harmonize data collection across studies, are recommended.
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 | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".