Neurodevelopmental predictors of treatment response in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Treatment resistance is a major challenge in psychiatric disorders. Early detection of potential future resistance would improve prognosis by reducing the delay to appropriate treatment adjustment and recovery. Here, we sought to determine whether neurodevelopmental markers can predict therapeutic response. Methods Healthy controls (N = 236), patients with schizophrenia (N = 280) or bipolar disorder (N = 78) with a known therapeutic outcome, were retrospectively included. Age, sex, education, early developmental abnormalities (obstetric complications, height, weight, and head circumference at birth, hyperactivity, dyslexia, epilepsy, enuresis, encopresis), neurological soft signs (NSS), and ages at first subjective impairment, clinical symptoms, treatment, and hospitalization, were recorded. A supervised algorithm leveraged NSS and age at first clinical signs to classify between resistance and response in schizophrenia. Results Developmental abnormalities were more frequent in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder than in controls. NSS significantly differed between controls, responsive, and resistant participants with schizophrenia (5.5 ± 3.0, 7.0 ± 4.0, 15.0 ± 6.0 respectively, p = 3 × 10−10) and bipolar disorder (5.5 ± 3.0, 8.3 ± 3.0, 12.5 ± 6.0 respectively, p < 1 × 10−10). In schizophrenia, but not in bipolar disorder, age at first subjective impairment was three years lower, and age at first clinical signs two years lower, in resistant than responsive subjects (p = 2 × 10−4 and p = 9 × 10−3, respectively). Age at first clinical signs and NSS accurately predicted treatment response in schizophrenia (area-under-curve: 77 ± 8%, p = 1 × 10−14). Conclusions Neurodevelopmental features such as NSS and age of clinical onset provide a means to identify patients who may require rapid treatment adaptation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".