Sample ascertainment and clinical outcome measures in the Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SCZ) Clinical Ascertainment and Outcome Measures Team aimed to establish a harmonized clinical assessment protocol across these two research networks and to define ascertainment criteria and primary and secondary endpoints. In addition to developing the assessment protocol, the goals of this aspect of the AMP SCZ project were: (1) to implement and monitor clinical training, ascertainment of participants, and clinical assessments; (2) to provide expert clinical input to the Psychosis Risk Evaluation, Data Integration and Computational Technologies: Data Processing, Analysis, and Coordination Center (PREDICT-DPACC) for data collection, quality control, and preparation of data for the analysis of the clinical measures; and (3) to provide ongoing support to the collection, analysis, and reporting of clinical data. This paper describes the (1) protocol clinical endpoints and outcomes, (2) rationale for the selection of the clinical measures, (3) extensive training of clinical staff, (4) preparation of clinical measures for a multisite study which includes several sites where English is not the native language; and (5) the assessment of measure stability over time in the AMP SCZ observational study comparing clinical ratings at baseline and at the 2-month follow up. Watch Dr. Jean Addington discuss her work and this article: https://vimeo.com/1040425281 .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it