MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412997787 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.10069

Advancing measurement-based care through triangle of care: Development and feasibility of the Transdiagnostic Global Impression – Psychopathology scale for patients and informants

2025· article· en· W4412997787 on OpenAlexaff
Roger S. McIntyre, Z.B. Dombi, Ágota Barabássy, Thomas Brevig, György Németh, Christoph U. Correll

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathologyScale (ratio)PsychologyImpressionClinical Global ImpressionClinical psychologyMedicineComputer scienceAlternative medicineCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Measurement-based care (MBC) is widely recommended in psychiatry but remains underutilized in routine clinical settings. The Transdiagnostic Global Impression - Psychopathology (TGI-P) scale was developed to provide a brief yet comprehensive assessment of 10 core transdiagnostic symptom domains. To support more inclusive care and promote patient and caregiver engagement in treatment planning, two new versions of the TGI-P, that is, a patient-rated and a separate informant-rated, were developed, complementing the previously published clinician-rated version. METHODS: The patient and informant versions mirror the original clinician-rated TGI-P, assessing the identical 10 domains using a seven-point Likert severity scale, with results displayed via a personalized symptom map. A user satisfaction/feasibility study was conducted with 50 participants (25 patients and 25 caregivers) from the UK and US. After completing the scale, participants provided feedback on its clarity, usability, emotional impact, and comparative utility. RESULTS: Most participants completed the scale in less than 5 min. Instructions were considered clear, and the format was rated easy to follow. Response options were deemed appropriate by 86% of participants, and the visual output was widely appreciated. While one-third reported mild emotional triggering, overall burden was described as manageable. Approximately, three-quarters of participants rated the TGI-P as equal to or better than other tools they had used. CONCLUSIONS: TGI-P patient and informant versions were developed and, informed by the feasibility study, refined to offer brief, user-friendly tools that support multi-informant assessment as input to MBC. Both versions of the TGI-P, with their graphical output, may support shared understanding and collaborative decision making among clinicians, patients, and caregivers. A validation study of the TGI-P is underway.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Psychiatry→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→