Clinical prediction model for transition to psychosis in individuals meeting At Risk Mental State criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The At Risk Mental State (ARMS) (also known as the Ultra or Clinical High Risk) criteria identify individuals at high risk for psychotic disorder. However, there is a need to improve prediction as only about 18% of individuals meeting these criteria develop a psychosis with 12-months. We have developed and internally validated a prediction model using characteristics that could be used in routine practice. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, followed by focus groups with clinicians and service users to ensure that identified factors were suitable for routine practice. The model was developed using logistic regression with backwards selection and an individual participant dataset. Model performance was evaluated via discrimination and calibration. Bootstrap resampling was used for internal validation. RESULTS: We received data from 26 studies contributing 3739 individuals; 2909 from 20 of these studies, of whom 359 developed psychosis, were available for model building. Age, functioning, disorders of thought content, perceptual abnormalities, disorganised speech, antipsychotic medication, cognitive behavioural therapy, depression and negative symptoms were associated with transition to psychosis. The final prediction model included disorders of thought content, disorganised speech and functioning. Discrimination of 0.68 (0.5-1 scale; 1=perfect discrimination) and calibration of 0.91 (0-1 scale; 1=perfect calibration) showed the model had fairly good predictive ability. DISCUSSION: The statistically robust prediction model, built using the largest dataset in the field to date, could be used to guide frequency of monitoring and enable rational use of health resources following assessment of external validity and clinical utility.
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 | 0.029 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".