Sample ascertainment and clinical outcome measures in the Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia Program
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.
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 | 0.066 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".