MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414180067 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.1878

Cognition in Treatment Resistant versus Non- Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia

2025· article· en· W4414180067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shruti Shah, Ritesh Patel, Ajay Bhandari, Ashwin Porwal, Nisha Lalwani

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Positive and Negative Syndrome ScaleCognitionCohortAntipsychoticTest (biology)Cohort studyCognitive test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Despite antipsychotic treatment, around one-third of individuals of schizophrenia remain unresponsive. Objectives Comparing cognitive impairments in TRS versus non-TRS patients. Methods 50 adult patients with schizophrenia(DSM-5) were recruited in this cross-sectional cohort study, categorised into TRS (14) (treatment-resistant schizophrenia) and NTRS (36) (non-treatment-resistant schizophrenia) by modified Kane criteria. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) were used. Results Table 1 TRS NTRS Overall Male(%) 42.8 63.8 58 Female(%) 57.1 36.1 42 AGE (years) 41.7 ± 13.1 41.4±12.3 41.5±12.4 DURATION OF ILLNESS(years) 17.2±10.8 6.3±6.8 9.4±9.4 Table 2 TRS NTRS Independent sample students’ T test pvalue MoCA 19.2±6 27.8±5.4 <0.01 TOTAL PANSS 106.3±22.4 57.4±21. <0.01 POSITIVE PANSS 22.1±7.3 13.8±6.4 <0.01 NEGATIVE PANSS 26.8±5.7 14.1±5.1 <0.01 Generalised PANSS 57.3±13.2 29.4±11.4 <0.01 COMPOSITE SCORE -4.71±7.6 -0.2±5.6 0.02 MoCA Scores (Table 2) are significantly lower in the TRS group, implying NTRS has a moderate cognitive decline, and TRS has severe cognitive decline. Total PANSS, Positive, Negative,and Generalised PANSS are significantly lower in the TRS group indicating severe symptoms than NTRS.Classifying based onTotal PANSS Score, the TRS has severely ill, while the NTRS has borderline mentally ill patients. The composite score indicates that the TRS group tends to have more negative symptoms. Computing the data’s variances and independent sample Welch’s t-test (Image 3) for data with unequal variances and independent sample student’s test (Images 1, 2) for data with equal variances were performed. Age does not significantly affect TRS(Table 1). Duration of illness is significantly higher in the TRS group. MoCA domains (i.e., executive function, visuospatial, orientation, and attention) except memory and language have significantly lower scores in the TRS group. Positive symptoms (conceptual disorganisation, excitement,grandiosity, suspicion, and hostility) except delusion and hallucinatory behaviour were significantly higher in the TRS group. Negative symptoms (emotional withdrawal, poor rapport, passive/apathetic social withdrawal, difficulty in abstract thinking, lack of spontaneity and flow of conversation, stereotype thinking) except blunted effect were significantly higher in the TRS group. Generalised symptoms (somatic concern, anxiety, guilt feelings, mannerism and posture, depression, motor retardation, uncooperativeness, unusual thought content, social disorientation, poor attention, lack of judgement, disturbance of volition, poor impulse control, preoccupation, and active social avoidance) except tension were significantly higher in the TRS group. Image: Image 2: Image 3: Conclusions TRS patients show severe cognitive impairment, however it does not impact language and memory. TRS shows more symptom severity except delusion, hallucinatory behaviour, blunted effect, and tension as compared to NTRS. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207